Matthew on 12/6/2007 at 10:00
Quote Posted by Malygris
Didn't play X-Com 3. Something about it being in real-time, you see. ;)
I thought turn-based combat was optional?
Rogue Keeper on 12/6/2007 at 10:25
Quote Posted by Malygris
SO HEY GUYS HOW ABOUT THAT FALLOUT TRAILER PRETTY COOL HUH?
Frankly said I hoped that person would be stripping down parts of the power armor in a seducing manner, revealing it's actually nude Angela Mordino.
vurt on 12/6/2007 at 10:26
Quote Posted by Sulphur
ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US
"ALL YOUR BASED ARE BELONG TO TURNED" - The Book of Revelation 3:2-7
Mr.WaeseL on 12/6/2007 at 12:05
This thread was fun but now it's like a barbed wire enema. Close this shit.
Malygris on 12/6/2007 at 14:33
i'll close your shit
Wait, that sounds wrong.
Turn-based combat in X-Com 3 was optional apparently, but truth be told that has nothing to do with why I didn't play it. I didn't play it because I just didn't care. I loved the hell out of the first one, but the concept around X-Com 2 did absolutely nothing for me, so I didn't bother with it, and after that I lost interest in the whole franchise.
Marlow on 12/6/2007 at 14:47
Quote Posted by Shakey-Lo
You forgot to mention the important bit, which is that the trailer was not turn-based.
But it IS. I have a rather slow connection and watched it on YouTube.
Sulphur on 12/6/2007 at 18:38
My first question about FO3 is this - will it have a soul?
Because from Beth's track record, they haven't been able to pull that off yet. I've yet to give a damn about any NPC in Oblivion. The original Fallout had Dogmeat, for goodness' sake: a dog whom, for some reason, I've come to care about even though all he does is follow me around and bite people.
My other question is - will they go the distance with the dark and disturbing? The Fallouts had their fair share of incisive humour, but they didn't avoid examing the depths that humanity could sink to. Remember the kebab/meat-on-a-stick seller from the original FO? [SPOILER]And your options once you found out what he was actually selling?[/SPOILER]
Both of these questions are academic, but I hope the team's thinking about heading in these directions anyway.
And if they aren't, the only way I can see FO3 as enjoyable is if it's a sandbox simulation of a Mad Max movie - minus Tina Turner.
Gingerbread Man on 12/6/2007 at 21:51
Don't mind me, I'm just seeing if this thread is broken or something as per ignatios' question.
Renzatic on 13/6/2007 at 02:07
Quote Posted by Sulphur
And if they aren't, the only way I can see FO3 as enjoyable is if it's a sandbox simulation of a Mad Max movie - minus Tina Turner.
Auntie Entity stays. Contrary to popular belief, we need another hero.
Koki on 13/6/2007 at 14:43
Quote Posted by Talgor
The purest forms of non-computer roleplaying require little or no dice at all. The mechanics can actually get in the way of RP, but they're there to make the act of collaborative storytelling (which is what playing a traditional RPGs is) easier, especially when playing with people who aren't that good at it.
Do you by any chance play Vampire: The Masquerade? Because you sure as hell sound like it... "Die are for noobs, real players do drama". Well guess what, die are not there to "make the act of collaborative storytelling easier". They're there as a merciless reality factor, and a tool to make whole thing something more than sitting with friends thinking up stories, because you don't need anything for that, not even DM.
Quote:
Talking about how you crave to have your to-hit rolls instead of aiming a blow or a shot yourself is more talking about how good a wargame / combat simulation it is, not really about how good a role-playing game it is...
We did that already...:
[quote=]The important thing is that when you play a role in an RPG, the physical abilities you posses are unimportant. You don’t have to have good timing. You don’t have to be fast or have good reflexes. Because when you assume the role of the character you are playing that doesn’t matter at all. The character you play is the master swordsman and he knows how to time the attack. His strength, agility, and reflexes are what matters, not yours.
Relying on the person playing the character’s physical abilities is possible in pen and paper RPGs as well. You could shoot an elastic (rubber-band) at a can to see if your character hits a target with his bow. You could move the can closer as he progresses in skill, and you could upgrade elastic to a slingshot then a wrist-rocket and then a bb-gun to account for weapon upgrades. For melee you could bust out rock’em sock’em robots to decide who wins. Or have someone try and hot a cat with a empty towel roll to see if he hits his enemy. Any number of fun an action packed exciting activities that rely on the players physical abilities.
But this isn’t done, even though it is 100% possible, because it wouldn’t be roleplaying. In every single pen and paper rpg the physical abilities of the player are not used. Because the ability of the character you play are independent of your own. When you assume the role of a character you become him. You try and think like him, and you make decisions as he you believe he would. You provide direction, and the rules of the game, the characters skill and attributes, and those of other characters in the game do the rest.
Roleplaying in an RPG will always rely on mental input. It cannot be separated or removed. Physical reliance and mental reliance are two different things. Roleplying in an RPG was always meant to be a mental activity, not a physical one. Because the character’s physical abilities are 100% independent of yours.
Everyone is saying that a FPS is an FPS, or an action game is an action game, if there is no reliance on the character’s abilities, and it becomes an RPG when the character’s abilities influences combat or other activities. I am saying that if there is any reliance on player ability (through twitch skills such as timing, reflexes, etc) the game cannot be an RPG. An RPG cRPG or pen and paper, does not rely on the players physical abilities at all. An action game with RPG elements can, but it is not an action-RPG—it is an action game with RPG elements.
In a splinter cell game Sam Fisher has the ability to be a master assassin (or whatever he is) but unless he and I work together as a dynamic team relying on each others abilities and knowing our limits, he is not a master assassin. He is as good physically as I am. My physical input dictates how well he performs and his master assassin status.
In a cRPG this is not true. For instance, in the game Buck Rogers, Buck Rogers joins your party for a little while, and he is badass no matter what your physical abilities are. He truly is a master independent of your input. The same with your party, when they become masters of their class, they are masters. My physical skill does not impact this in any way, shape, or form. When I assume the role of a character I truly become them. In an action game with rpg elements when you assume the role of a character you become each other. So in an action game with RPG elements you are the role as you play the role, discounting the game from being an RPG. I wish I could find the right way to explain this but logically it cannot be an RPG because it breaks the law of non-contradiction. It’s like saying I was running around flying. If you are running you aren’t flying and if you are flying you aren’t running. My character isn’t a master swordsman if his master swordsman skills are reliant on my physical abilities.
...it leads nowhere.
