HybridVision on 15/6/2007 at 20:13
Quote Posted by Talgor
Well, it actually leads straight into "What's the definition of an RPG?" but that's a discussion thread we've also had here from time to time. I don't agree with that definition of an RPG there, but I'm unlikely to convince you to agree with mine.
What is there to disagree with? It's called role
playing. You pretend to do things that you absolutely cannot do in real life. I.e. I can roleplay a wizard, but I don't need to know any magic in real life. In fact, Houdini would have no advantage or be any better as a 3rd level mage than I would.
Similarly, if I pretend to be a master assassin, I can do that without any competance in actually using weapons for real.
It's role
playing, not role
doing. You pretend rather than perform. Does that make any sense?
Kuuso on 15/6/2007 at 20:25
Quote Posted by Koki
It's been confirmed, or something.
Still doesn't really tell me anything, other than the fact I will loathe character creation. Combat description doesn't make any fucking sense, it doesn't clearly say anything about the camera. Of course it's nice to see no level scalling(JESUS) and multiple endings,
on the other hand slow-down when popping someone's head is trying too hard, and about the multiple solutions... we'll see.
I think it's a nice little gory detail. How sadistic it might sound, but slow-mo killing sequences are always a delight. I
Why'd you loathe character creation? It's implemented in to the game world, I always enjoy that. Even the first Fallout had the character creation implemented in to the world (manual :)).
I do agree that it doesn't actually say much. It's good to see the mention of action points there though.
Thirith on 15/6/2007 at 21:19
Quote Posted by HybridVision
It's role
playing, not role
doing. You pretend rather than perform. Does that make any sense?
Which is true but fairly pointless, since it applies to almost all computer games. In NHL 2007, you pretend to play hockey - what you actually do, what you perform, has little to do with hockey. Same goes for Half-Life, or Prince of Persia, or Grim Fandango, or GTA: San Andreas. The only games I can think of right now where you're not 'pretending' are computer versions of board games, e.g. chess, or stuff like Tetris where there is no corresponding real-world action.
Talgor on 15/6/2007 at 21:23
Quote Posted by HybridVision
What is there to disagree with? It's called role
playing. You pretend to do things that you absolutely cannot do in real life.
At least to me, this is not neccessarily true. In most cases it is, but it's not a requirement. Your character could be an ordinary office worker, and it would still be a perfectly valid roleplay character, despite having no supernatural or unusual skills.
Quote Posted by HybridVision
It's role
playing, not role
doing. You pretend rather than perform. Does that make any sense?
Well, it's semantics, but when I look up the definition of the verb "play", the first five definitions refer to performances, acting... and to me this is a part of any good role-playing experience.
To give an example: You have a scene with one or more NPCs. A discussion arises. Sure, you can do this with the GM merely describing the mannerisms, speaking styles, accents and attitudes of the NPCs before he reads their lines in a neutral manner, but the experience is so much richer if the GM acts out, *plays* the parts of the NPCs. He doesn't have to prance around the room, merely a verbal performance is enough to enhance the scene considerably. The same goes for player characters.
I've yet to read a RPG manual which does NOT say "Have your players act out their conversation", even when the game in question gives their characters conversation-related and social skills. Sure, you can just roll the dice and skip the whole thing if you want, replacing the dialogue with a description of how well the conversation went and what information was gained, but... that's terribly boring and flat.
The same applies to computer RPGs. This is the thing that Bioware *seriously* does right: they make characters, and they have good performances. I'm not a fan of D&D, I don't really care all that much for the mechanics of something like Baldur's Gate, but I played it through because the characters, the way they were PLAYED, and in this I mean "acted out", entertained me.
But, as I stated before, this is the same discussion we've had a million times, it's not really relevant to this thread, and we're unlikely to get anywhere new even if we do it for the millionth and first time...
HybridVision on 15/6/2007 at 22:24
Quote Posted by Thirith
Which is true but fairly pointless, since it applies to almost all computer games. In NHL 2007, you pretend to play hockey - what you actually do, what you perform, has little to do with hockey. Same goes for Half-Life, or Prince of Persia, or Grim Fandango, or GTA: San Andreas. The only games I can think of right now where you're not 'pretending' are computer versions of board games, e.g. chess, or stuff like Tetris where there is no corresponding real-world action.
True. But there are exceptions, mostly to do with speed. Thinking speed and reaction speed.
In a true RPG, a person with slow reactions and average precision should be able to become, if he choses, a person with superhuman reactions and precision. Similarly a person who is slow and methodical should be able to roleplay an incredibly quick-thinking genius.
Games which require
you to think or act quickly do not fulfil this obligation. In NHL 2007, you might not actually be playing basketball, but
you still need to think rapidly. Same deal with Tekken.
ignatios on 15/6/2007 at 22:46
Quote Posted by HybridVision
In NHL 2007, you might not actually be playing basketball
Well I agree with this much at least!
Jonesy on 16/6/2007 at 01:10
(
http://www.nma-fallout.com/) has the magazine scans to confirm the details on the frontpage.
also hilarity as NMA goes apeshit.
Phatose on 16/6/2007 at 01:51
Hey look. Oblivion with guns. Didn't see that one coming.
Well, actually it doesn't sound quite that bleak, but it's a new gameplay system by Bethesda, and the only thing they do better then scenic vistas is right royally fucking up gameplay mechanics.
Renzatic on 16/6/2007 at 03:45
The only complaint I have from that article is the super mutant. It's looks too fantasy-orc-rarr-demon-tough. But that's a nitpick if anything. Other than that I think it looks better than expected.
If it has decent conversations, interesting quests, and lets me plow a hooker, I'll happily proclaim it the new Fallout.
The_Raven on 16/6/2007 at 04:04
Was I the only one that thought the information contained in the article looked promising? Yes, it isn't isometric and turn based, but it's not just oblivion with guns either; it's somewhere in the middle. Perks, Traits, Skills, ambiguous moral choices, karma, hacking, robots and 40s/50s music are all back. The only thing that I thought was a bit WTF was the portable nuclear cannon and the Brotherhood being in the northeastern states. I do acknowledge the complains that it looks like oblivion with its vast empty landscapes and orcs/supermutants, but these things were always present, to some extent, in fallout. The scanning food and water for radiation and jury-rigging weapons from spar parts sounds like fitting additions to fallout to me. The whole "you can't do everything in one game" and branching mission structure sounds exactly what I was hoping for.
