Fallout: are the roots of classic RP completely extinct?
- Thread starter sushkis2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's pretty much just because developers these days are too focused on making RPGs into games. It's not their fault... in the old days, when graphics were poorer and you didn't need a team of 20 artists working for a month to make a single mob, you could make the random silly stuff which give character to games.
In those days you had to bring out the flavour of the world using nothing but text and mechanics. These days, you can design a character model to do that for you. It's great, but the cool stuff that made RPGs worth playing, like the random mis-casts of a Wild Mage in Baldur's Gate, or even the different dialogues and options based on class have fallen at the way side. We'll probably never see something like the Holy Avenger again... a unique item only useful to a single class in a game which has over ten.
Need to bring back some feeling to our modern classes. A rogue should not just be a melee damager. A warrior should be more than his sword and shield. A mage should be more than his spell book.
In those days you had to bring out the flavour of the world using nothing but text and mechanics. These days, you can design a character model to do that for you. It's great, but the cool stuff that made RPGs worth playing, like the random mis-casts of a Wild Mage in Baldur's Gate, or even the different dialogues and options based on class have fallen at the way side. We'll probably never see something like the Holy Avenger again... a unique item only useful to a single class in a game which has over ten.
Need to bring back some feeling to our modern classes. A rogue should not just be a melee damager. A warrior should be more than his sword and shield. A mage should be more than his spell book.
The hard part about this question is that there are many connected issues in play here. The biggest question you need to ask is, "Why did we have so many turn-based RPGs in the first place?" Even outside RPGs, turn-based combat was the way of things for awhile.sushkis2 said:Sorry for re-posting, apparently, I have put my poll in a wrong category earlier.
I have finished Fallout 3 earlier, i thought it was awesome, then came Fallout NV, i was disappointed, completely... Then i thought, hmm, shouldn't there be Fallout 1 and 2? I got me Fallout 1, and... I had the most fun out of a video game in years. I just got sick of those action rpg's, fps's and mumorpugers... And i coudnt find anything remotely similar to this turn based rpg style, at least not in the last decade.
Leave your suggestions and whatnot
The only games that have come up so far are Planescape something and Arcanum sumthin-sumthin, are they good ore even better than Fallout?
Hell, chess and checkers are turn-based combat, in a sense. But why so many? Technological limitations, for a long time. We just hadn't perfected the ability to have two sides acting simultaneously. RPGs had players navigating convoluted menus to find attacks and items, using cursors to select targets, and a host of other micromanaged tasks that required a stop-and-think environment.
Action movies don't help, either. They present fights in a theatrical way, in which (despite the intense speed in well-choregraphed fights) opponents kindly address each other's attacks before replying in turn. They're just really fast turn-based exchanges. It's really cool to watch, despite how unrealistic it is.
That feel just doesn't translate into games, though. Turn-based combat tends to slow things down. Too many actions are micromanaged, and bizarre constructs pop up that feel unnatural--do you really think you'd be unable to fire your shotgun at all, simply because you took a step backward and "ran out of AP?"
Too much "twitch" is a problem, too, in that it removes all sense of strategy--it's a race to see who can put the most bullets downfield in the shortest amount of time. But there are aspects of that we glean from real life, too. When I'm swinging my fist at someone's head, they're probably not thinking, "I need to deal with this incoming fist before retaliating." Odds are, more often than not, we're going to swing at the same time. It's a bit messier and more chaotic.
Games are working on finding a balance. You want the action to flow, without being constantly broken up my menus and math. But you also want strategic decisions regarding equipment, skills, and position to matter even in the thick of the fight. The recent Fallout games don't have it perfect, but playing the game through using different weapons/skills really makes combat feel different. (The biggest flaw is that companions will sometimes overshadow you in combat, since they don't have to "wait their turns.")
This thread pretty much clenches it.sushkis2 said:Sorry for re-posting, apparently, I have put my poll in a wrong category earlier.
I have finished Fallout 3 earlier, i thought it was awesome, then came Fallout NV, i was disappointed, completely... Then i thought, hmm, shouldn't there be Fallout 1 and 2? I got me Fallout 1, and... I had the most fun out of a video game in years. I just got sick of those action rpg's, fps's and mumorpugers... And i coudnt find anything remotely similar to this turn based rpg style, at least not in the last decade.
Leave your suggestions and whatnot
The only games that have come up so far are Planescape something and Arcanum sumthin-sumthin, are they good ore even better than Fallout?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.277254-BioWare-Mass-Effect-3-Combat-Perfected#10784317
Mass Effect 3 combat supposedly perfected? Right... I personally think they just took a shit in everyone's mouth who's been with them since Baldur's Gate
-Tabs<3-
You see, I like the story side of Bioware games better then the RPG side.
I mean yeh it's nice if I can customize my character's weapons and armour, but I think getting bogged down with pointless RPG elements and STUPID amounts of item drops (most of them totally useless) gets in the way of what I'm actually playing the game for.
I like the story of Mass Effect a hell-of-a-lot more then say... Star Treck.
I mean yeh it's nice if I can customize my character's weapons and armour, but I think getting bogged down with pointless RPG elements and STUPID amounts of item drops (most of them totally useless) gets in the way of what I'm actually playing the game for.
I like the story of Mass Effect a hell-of-a-lot more then say... Star Treck.
If no one has suggested the then you might want to check out the jagged alliance titles, also xcom is an Awsome game though not so much an RPG as.. Well it's unique but you're pretty sure to like it.
I'll try and think up some more for you when I get home.
I'll try and think up some more for you when I get home.
Baldur's Gate, Planescape, Arcanum, ADOM, Mass Effect, The Witcher, Jagged Alliance 2, The Longest Journey, Drakkhen, Gothik, VAmpire: Blodlines, Vampire: Redemption, Pool of Radiance, Bard's Tale, Wasteland (Fallout's granddad), Torchlight, Diablo, Neverwinter Nights, X-Com UFO/TFTD/Apocalypse, Frozen Synapse, D&D online...
The odd thing with the whole D&D -> old hardcore RPGs thing is that (this is what I've read, I've never done any tabletop RPing) statistics are seen as necessary, but not the focus, and are made to not be prevalent where possible. The choices and actually fulfillment of the role were the most important thing.Togs said:
It just strikes me how the tabletop stuff is seen as the "ultimate version", and then the old stats-based stuff, and then the stuff you get now where people say they're not "real" RPGs any more, even though they're more aimed at the things people try to do in TT sessions.
Anyway, just a general observation (quoted you because you mentioned tabletop stuff).