That's just it though... As the technology improves, the games can afford to incorporate more real-time probability calculations, and incorporate the PC stats and skills into more and more aspects of play. Eventually, game studios will get access to the state of the art speech synthesis applications and be able to voice the minor NPC's via text files. This would allow massive dialog trees that could take the PC's social skills into account ~limiting access as per the PC's ability to converse, or their ability to 'connect the dots' about the concepts discussed.

Sure. And as I recall [reading], there was some personnel shifts after Morrowind.

You are absolutely right ~I should update that.

My examples were based on what appears [to me] to be the polar opinions.

When did I state I was the majority? I simply stated that Gizmo is not the majority and when Skyrim is released, you'll see why I'm right. Y2K was more likely to happen than Bethesda adding a to-hit chance on Skyrim. There's a reason why they removed it, and I'm sure that reason isn't going to automagically change. It isn't coming back with Skyrim. Deal with it.

Just so you folks know, the question, "what is an RPG" is food for a flame war and a thread of it's own. Lets not drag this thread down that path as it's a big umbrella and many are correct on one end of the rpg definition to the other end and somewhere in between.

TES is and has always been stat based btw and has always included dice rolls. Not enough for some, too much for others and just right for others.

You want to discuss "what is an RPG", go to CD and do a search and join in. If you don't find an open thread about it, make one. But we won't have that debate in this section. Sorry.

I don't think it should be numbers at all for health or damage, but no one would ever consider it because it's not "RPG"-like. -.-

Mainly (and this is opinion) game design for a consumer that generally treats the character as only an alias in the game world.




Well first off, the Witcher actually provides a well formed character role, and the game reacts well [IMO] to player choices.

I don't see how you can claim no attributes though...
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Witcher.jpg

I'm not exactly certain how you saw that in between the lines. You know, if you want your character to svck at sword fighting, you could very easily play terrible at sword fighting until you build your stats up. Very easily. Or you could just naturally svck. Whichever works for you.

I've been waiting three years for someone to say that one. :devil:

Just goes to show you that anticipation of something is usually better than actually getting it. Like an RPG that implies certain places and characters, but never focuses on them, verses one that tries to depict those places, (and even game mechanics), but cannot live up to the imagined ideal.

(* in fact this can even apply to art. I remember a Quake TC that had a fantasy setting, but I could not play it, due to the bad modeling ; but I could play Curse of the Azure Bonds all night, because the monsters were abstract icons representing the creature's position and action during combat.)

I usually hope that a game won't rely on larping. I have seen websites advocating that Oblivion player's dress their PC as a guard and stand a post at one of the gates for three hours. To each there own I suppose.

That is untrue, in fact games tend to move the other way around.

In Mass Effect you can only play as Shepard a commander of the Systems Alliance who just became a Specter. You are even given several background story choices to flesh out your character.

In Dragon Age: Origins, again you are given several background choices to play as. In Dragon Age 2, you can only play as Hawke, with a pre-determined family and relations.


Then I remembered it wrong, my mistake. But those stats didn't affected you any differently than in, say Oblivion. Like, I'm pretty sure there were no to-hit rolls.

As for the well formed character role, I said before that other games did it as well.

I've never delved into its internals, or modded it ~yet, but IIRC having low skill made it very easy for the more dangerous creatures to block & parry; which would equate to a "chance to hit". Weapon styles made a difference, and I'm not certain if they were the only thing making a difference, but I don't think so.

Like Morrowind & Oblivion?

If you so strongly feel that someone with a sword skill of 50 should always get smashed by someone with a sword skill of 90 in a one versus one duel, then go ahead a do some "Live Action Role-Playing". Not your cup of tea? Go play another game then because it's obvious that Skyrim probably won't meet your vicious attitude of "stats determine everything and player skill be gone".

indeed

I would have said Vicarious over Vicious... I'm not sure I understand your intended point.
(Though it is my opinion that stats (and skills) should determine everything PC related, as far as the game's reaction is concerned.)

I've long known the [TES] series was not my cup of tea, as every character and NPC in the game is a mage. (But I like to mod :shrug:, and this series has pretty good tools.)

---

On the subject of 'min/max' variation.... Until the RPG's can (or attempt to) depict minor and major hits (Like a scratch in the cheek, or arm vs. a stab to the neck or severed fingers...), I would always prefer having a min/max mechanic in place.

To each their own I suppose.

Although I would very much like to avoid dice rolls deciding, to-hit chance, given that this will collide with controls granted to the player through First Person Perspective. I feel that weapon damage having a min-max range is pretty essential, and exactly what Oblivion would have benefited from.

Because hitting is governed by physics, and the direction & position of the PC, in the physical game world, is governed by the player (a good thing given the perspective), it becomes more essential that the character is expressed in the actual hit. This is because the actual hit, is where the player has no (direct) influence, and so is an opportune moment to express skill, without it overriding player skill (which isn't there). Giving weapons a damage interval, and having character skill (among other factors**) govern what damage within this interval, the character has the highest chance of giving, would in theory do exactly that.

**For example, damage zones on the body (head = potential for high damage).

The resulting game, would be a First Person Perspective Action Rpg, where the Roleplay element will have a greater influence on the output of the Action, but without colliding with the implemented perspective. And we haven't even begone talking about Critical strike/fail.

Does that mean that any hit to the head does extra damage? (And if so... does that allow for something like a minor scratch, for being almost out of range as they attempt to dodge?)

The best method of melee combat (conceptually), that I have ever seen done in a game, was done in "Die by the Sword". It was ahead of it's time, and needed better controllers to hook most players, but that game had physics based melee, with locational wounding on the victim, dismemberment for all joints, death by decapitation, and the weapons did damage based on how hard they happened to hit. Blocking with shield or weapon was possible (expected of you), but had to be done manually. See... the game let you swing your sword (or ax, or mace), where ever you wanted ~same as if you were really holding one and swinging it around you.
DbtS was not an RPG... it was more of an action adventure.

*And it shipped in 1998 (same year as Fallout 2).

Well we can say it's a damage amplifier like: damage given = [base damage]^{(amplification)} , amplifying the base damage chosen from the interval (by the skill). This will result in low base damage, receiving little amplification, ( fx 2² = 4 ) , while high base damage receives high amplification ( fx 33² = 1089 ). And who controls base damage -> character skill, now character skill even has an influence in amplification.

Alternately, we can go with a a baldurs gate approach of helmet protecting against head zone amplification. (well critical hits, but you get the point)

Of course the AI should try not getting hit in the head as well.

I was a really big fan of Die by the sword, well I was intrigued by the combat system. Like you say the controls wasn't that good, but the concept was still a fun approach.

I never said anything about liking dice rolls in a action RPG. In fact if you look through this forum my opinion is the exact opposite of that. Find me a game that is considered a RPG by the industry and doesn't have stats and I'll give you a cookie.

I wish that modern games could manage this; Skyrim would greatly benefit from it I'd think.

* There is a hack for DbtS, that uses the Wii controllers for weapon and shield control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge96uISNrNM

(If they put DbtS on the Wii, I'd buy one. :laugh:)

DoomRPG http://wireless.ign.com/articles/652/652161p1.html
PocketRPG as well (perhaps) http://www.slidetoplay.com/story/pocket-rpg-hands-on-preview

*I know these are just phone games.

Dungeon Siege series doesn't seem to have stats; (I'm not positive, but I don't see any during character creation). DS 1 & 2 are listed as RPGs on Moby games. :shrug:

First suggestion: Turn based therefore it needs things like chance to hit, and such.
Second Suggestion: Has classes, leveling up, and attributes.

All of these are stats based, but have a cookie anyway for doing this research.
:cookie:

Cool!

I haven't played any of these games. I looked, but did not see stats in the character creation of Dungeon Siege, and could not find a character page (screen cap) of Pocket RPG.

*Turn based does not require "chance to hit", unless it is character based. (Ha!... the game I was thinking of does in fact use chance to hit, but I still don't think its a requirement.)
Does anyone know if the Diablo series uses "Chance to hit"?

Why would that bother you since you don't like the TES series or this type of game anyway? Door to door salesman?

It's actually a series that attracts many varied people, including larpers. It's how some folks like to play and it harms nobody.

I want to see Morrowind's system back. More realistic. :thumbsup:

I don't mind it... I just hope its not mandatory ~such affects the design of the game, and perhaps the next one. The context (as I understand it), was that it was suggested to me to play at being incompetent if it meant being in character ~which can be done; but I always hope that the game is "in on it", and such role playing is acknowledged (or better yet ~enforced)... Which it wasn't in Oblivion.

RPGs that impress me are the ones that react very astutely to the player's choices during the game (and use some of them :chaos:).
Even if the graphics are CGA and the voices 4 bit audio (or none)... I will still appreciate a game with those qualities.

No rude intention taken.

However, your example of, what is in essence, an infinite story building, is not an example which properly depicts the situation.

Your examples says, that if you just have to stack on level onto another, then you can make buildings higher tomorrow than they are today.

What I'm saying, is that buildings are so high today, and so tomorrow you could build a building of the same height. I.e. your building example refers to technology that exists today, and building upon it to create technology that doesn't exist today, but could logically exist tomorrow. I'm saying that the technology to do so already exists.

Your balance, sway, micro-movements, and all the examples you gave, are exactly what goes into creating a real-time physics engine, and so no, the hockey example was not simplified or what you claim to be a "liberal-arts fallacy."

Balance, sway, and micro-movements are all based upon the same thing--numbers. It's all calculations. The momentum of an object (mace, or whatever the case is), is calculated similarly to a hockey playing skating. Weight, speed, momentum are all taken into account.

Surfaces and angles are the same thing that are taken into account in real-time physics as well. Having an NPC "react" to something a PCA does, is not far-fetched nor state-of-the-art. I'm not oversimplifying "x" and determining "y" from that, (your building example). I'm saying that X exists, so let's use it, because it doesn't make any sense to use technology that was developed over ten years ago, when we have newer technology that is much better and just as practical for our purposes.

You can simplify my example all you want, and say that hockey, or a physics engine isn't all that complicated, but most people only see the results of an extremely complex system used in a very specific context, which can, (and has), been extended into other uses.