A Question about RPGs.

[Alex_P]

The reason D&D represents the middle group is largely because of how open it is - as the players (or rather, the DM, who is 'technically' playing the game as well) pretty much define every aspect of how much, or how little story there is, and the same with combat, it generally falls into a happy medium. People don't play RPGs for hack-'n'-slash thrills, that's what hack-'n'-slash games are for. Likewise, you don't play RPGs solely for the story, because you might as well watch a film, or read a book. There's a happy mid-ground where everything works well together, and that appears far more in tabletop RPGs than computer-based ones.

Well, I know I play pen-and-paper RPGs chiefly for "story". They're collaborative, improvisational, and personal, which is different from the experience of reading a book or watching a movie. I like the game-mechanical geegaws of an RPG (maybe I should say some RPGs) because they set constraints that make it easier to create compelling fiction on the fly; I don't usually enjoy fiddling with the fiddly bits for their own sake.

When I want a balance of (non-collaborative, non-improvisational, not-very-personal) story and hack-n-slash gameplay, I actually turn to video-game RPGs. Hack-n-slash combat is way faster than it is on the tabletop; sometimes it's more interesting tactically, too (the much-vaunted flexibility of pen-and-paper RPGs actually makes combat less tactics-focused). The storylines are limited but fairly well-written, which is more than you can expect from a just-follow-my-plot GM.

...

Honestly, though, is a Bioware game all that different from playing through a railroaded-but-well-designed D&D campaign? The distribution of fighting monsters, talking to shopkeepers, and advancing the plot in Baldur's Gate 2 certainly isn't much different from the distribution of fighting monsters, advancing the plot, and talking to shopkeepers in Against the Giants, or in Queen of the Demonweb Pits, or in Dragons of Despair, or in Keep on the Shadowfell, or in most play reports you would find on a D&D forum.

-- Alex

 

[awsome117]

My favorite RPG of all time has to be Golden Sun. The story and characters are very well developed and has great combat. although, there aren't many side quests, as they all lead to the same goal really. But, it has fun combat with the addition of Djinn, and a great story with great characters

 

[Fuzzyllamma]

I think I agree with you somewhat here. For one, Crystal Chronicles was a big dissappointment to me at least, but the other FF games (considered JRPGS) have such an in-depth story I really don't know what you're talking about. A JRPG that I found that focuses a little on both is Tales of Symphonia for gamecube. It doesn't have the turn based combat system but lets you control each individual character as to whats needed. I never really understood the you-go I go bullshit.
HOWEVER
There is one exception to this which is Legend of Dragoon.
By far my favorite RPG, even though it is old as the hills. Even though its turn based, the amount of animation and characterization won me over till the very end. The story took many twists and turns which kept me on the edge. By the final conclusion, I was deeply saddened that it was over. I still to this day hold it as my all-time favorite game. Here's hoping to a LoD remake or LoD2 =D

 

[SBoggart]

I think Elder Scrolls: Oblivion's combat system was fabulous. It had a healthy supply of button mashing and manslaughter for my inner FPS player as well as a level of martial skill that challenged me. That said, I really only used the melee combat system. Needless to say, the Elder Scrolls franchise has some of the best and most expansive intellectual property of any swords & sorcery franchise today. So, in general, yes, I think having storyline and combat coincide is completely possible.... And has been done.

 

[MercurySteam]

JRPGS focus more on combat? no FUCK NO

I have played too many FF games (3).

And I DO AGREE VERY FUCKING MUCH!!!

E.g. in FF VII on Ps1: At least ten lessons on how to junction this and junction that... blah blah blah............

Couldn't they just have said 'equip'?.......

JRPGS focus more on combat?

No on Square Enix's life...........

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

If you want story and combat to go together, you're going to need a PnP game: D&D, GURPS, WoD, or something else.

The issue is that the amount of fine-tuning to make everything work is intuitive to humans, and thus impossible for computers.


I have yet to find any game that:
1) Has a believable combat system
2) Integrates combat with story
3) Isn't broken in several ways
4) Allows you to make choices

Examples:

Freelancer has everything, but railroads you into the story: you have to continue the main story in order to advance past certain points.

Oblivion (Elder Scrolls 4) fails the "Broken in several ways" test. 5x 20% chameleon armors and unlimited money using alchemy, and I'm not using any bugs in the game.

I can probably think of several MMOs that get everything, but run into the problem of having combat not feel real (too easy to survive: the only use of healing is if you want to go faster; and not rest between battles).


And so it goes. Even D&D fails the "broken" aspect (look up "Pun Pun"); which has me considering switching to GURPS (which requires the GM to be fairly involved: no making a computer game. It also costs $60+ to get the books, while I have the D&D books)

 

[TJM8]

The main problem is that everyone is looking for just the right amount of story and gameplay for them, and unless you go make a game for yourself its going to be tough to find that game. I know it sounds crazy, saying you can't have good story and good combat, but there are plenty of games that have good combat and story for certain audiences. The hope is somewhere out there some game developer is making the game just for you, then you can cling onto it for years to come as the best game ever haha i mean thats what most of us do. Or you could go to a game developers office and throw a brick through their window whenever you have a good idea, works for me.

 

[Aries_Split]

go play Fallout 1 & 2, then come back and talk to me.....

The stories aren't exactly great in those. They are classics because of the gameplay.

Go play Planescape:Torment(Literary ORGASM), and realize that the Fallout series has a very weak story in comparison.

 

[Alex_P]

If you want story and combat to go together, you're going to need a PnP game: D&D, GURPS, WoD, or something else.

The issue is that the amount of fine-tuning to make everything work is intuitive to humans, and thus impossible for computers.

I think you and others are overstating the usefulness of pen-and-paper RPGs in this department. They have some very pronounced weaknesses.

The most obvious one is resolution time. How long does it take to resolve just one combat scene in D&D or GURPS or old-Vampire, for example? How long does it take to play through an encounter in Mass Effect or Morrowind or Final Fantasy VI? Certainly I've seen Guild Wars PvP battles last as long as some D&D fights, but those were a lot more tactically complex because players were making hundreds of choices over the course of those 20-30 minutes. I've basically given up on action-by-action combat resolution almost entirely because it always takes so damn long.

When it comes down to it, I'd rather sit through a few extraneous short combat scenes than play a game where you can "fine-tune" the mix of combat and non-combat scenes but any serious fight takes at least an hour to resolve.

I have yet to find any game that:
1) Has a believable combat system
2) Integrates combat with story
3) Isn't broken in several ways
4) Allows you to make choices

Does a "believable combat system" have to be some sort of action-by-action task resolution with a bunch of combat simulation rules? If you loosen that restriction and just say "a system that helps generate believable fiction in combat", it's a lot easier. I find that it's much easier to build a compelling fight scene out of player-narrated events supported by game mechanics rather than game mechanics which try to model all the major details of each blow. This also solves "integrates combat with story" issue by pretty much removing the separation between them, too.

I can probably think of several MMOs that get everything, but run into the problem of having combat not feel real (too easy to survive: the only use of healing is if you want to go faster; and not rest between battles).

Well, what's the alternative? You die a lot and get resurrected? You die permanently? The fights are about something other than life and death? (That last one's certainly the least lame, but then you have to redefine the whole game and it no longer lives up to the players' expectations of a generic fantasy RPG. Anything that looks just like dying but isn't is basically just a resurrection by a slightly different name.)

And so it goes. Even D&D fails the "broken" aspect (look up "Pun Pun"); which has me considering switching to GURPS (which requires the GM to be fairly involved: no making a computer game. It also costs $60+ to get the books, while I have the D&D books)

Pun-Pun is a rather poor example, I think. It's the result of the rather torturous rules-lawyering of a single poorly-designed monster ability in a random supplement. This and most other forms of "character optimization" are little word-game exercises that have no application to actual play. To the extent that 3rd Edition can truly be called broken ("broken" is somewhat subjective, after all), it's broken because some of its fundamental assumptions -- such as the idea that a "level" represents some known quantity of character power -- don't actually hold.

Also, trivia bit: GURPS was going to be a computer game: Fallout. Fallout hastily migrated to the custom-designed SPECIAL system (GURPS with some renamings) after some disagreements between Steve Jackson Games and Interplay.

-- Alex

 

[ElTigreNegro]

You're looking for a good balance between story and gameplay? Persona 3 and Valkyria Chronicles should do the job.

 

[DreamKing]

You're looking for a good balance between story and gameplay? Persona 3 and Valkyria Chronicles should do the job.

Thank you for the recommendation.

 

[Ryuuzoji]

Western RPGs have an engrossing story, side stories, believable NPCs,

What the hell are you smoking? This is bullshit and completly backwards. JPRGs have fantastic stories while western ones barely have a story at all.

JRPGs have you playing a certain character along a linear plot while WRPG let you create a character and choose your own path

Its true that some JPRGs is very linear, but most of them have very deep stories and lots of interesting side plots. I find western RPGs boring because the setting often is simple dull and primitive, the surroundings are always dusty plains and ghost towns. in JRPGs there are often wide, open areas, where you can unfold yourself.

 

[Aries_Split]

Western RPGs have an engrossing story, side stories, believable NPCs,

What the hell are you smoking? This is bullshit and completly backwards. JPRGs have fantastic stories while western ones barely have a story at all.

JRPGs have you playing a certain character along a linear plot while WRPG let you create a character and choose your own path

What "path" is that? Good, Evil, or Neutral. Wow, so deep. Oh, and you can choose what shade on mustache you want!

Fail.

 

[Alex_P]

The "Eastern" vs. "Western" thing is ridiculous. Let me illustrate with a couple of "what the thing you said really means" examples:
"Western RPGs are open-ended sandboxes!" = "I've only ever played Oblivion!"
"Eastern RPGs are all about emo kids and cliched world-saving plots." = "I've played two Final Fantasy games. Also, I wasn't paying attention to the fact that almost all works in the fantasy genre, regardless of medium or nation of origin, are really just big piles of cliches anyway."

-- Alex

 

[Gamer137]

JRPG for combat and WRPG for story? That's a first. In both ways, I prefer JRPGs.

WRPGs have mixed combat. The shooters have the tested and proved combat of a normal shooter. It's as fun as any other shooter, but the RPG elements appear useless. Afterall, you are using guns, not swords, magic, or arrows. Guns can't be upgrade by personal experience except accuracy, but you manually aim, so no need for an accuracy stat. The medival fantasy ones I can't stand on consoles. If given the choice between swords or magic, I go for magic. But magic comes in such large varieties that they are impossible to play on consoles due to limited controls. I have not played PC RPGs, so can't judge those. So WRPG combat ranges from terrible (Fable series) and average but useable (Fallout 3). In terms of story, it is great for personal fantasy simulations due to the mass amount of customization and large open world, etc. But I hate having too much freedom in games. They drive me insane. I feel this also causes WRPGs to suffer in terms of story. You have to learn everything from personal observations since cutsceans are rare if ever used. Plus the mass amount of dialouge choices and paths of story development make me mad when I have to play a game multiple times just for the sake of story rather then gameplay. Plus most of the time you play as a loner, which is dull. So WRPGs, average combat and OK story.

Most JRPG combat is great, both turn based and real time. Turned based combat allows much more tactics rather then reflexes, which is a nice break from shooters and RTSs, and allow you to actually play as a team and magic user easily due to menus. I only experiencd real time JRPG combat from the Tales series, but it does it well. The AI is at least competent, and magic using is much easier thanks to its clever control stick style without hurting movement, and the RPG elements blend well unlike shooter WRPGs. Random encounters are annoying, but that trend is dying out for visable and respawning monster groups. Story telling is also superior. By limiting choice and allowing cutsceans, it can focus on the development on the single story path and does not have to depend on you witnessing critical events that you may miss if you dont have cutsceans. Also, the worlds are generally more beautiful and varied, unlike grey and brown. I have heared the "repetitive JRPG story" argument. However, Western games have just as many cliches. Also, I generally get more attached to a main character who speaks and has a face, rather then a possibly faceless and speechless main character. Superior and more varied combat mixed with superior story telling, JRPGs are better in my opinion.

 

[Yog Sothoth]

go play Fallout 1 & 2, then come back and talk to me.....

The stories aren't exactly great in those. They are classics because of the gameplay.

Go play Planescape:Torment(Literary ORGASM), and realize that the Fallout series has a very weak story in comparison.

hmmm, i suppose you're right... i guess i was just mistaking the incredibly open-ended story options for a good story... let me try this again:

go play Knights of the Old Republic, then come back and talk to me....

EDIT: while i agree that Planescape: Torment had an excellent story, the gameplay itself was a little off-putting for me....