Stat based RPGs are duller in my opinion. (Stat based as in level some random thing up) Personally I like Role Play (It's like Fallout, the stats are a nice little side thing and the gameplay and life of your character are the main focus)
RPG - why stats matter
- Thread starter Traun
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I probably am doing it wrong, I just make my melee 100 and knife people....I tend to ignore range and speech skills...Trolldor said:
I'll put it like this(so we don't nitpick till death do us part), games should not be constrained with a genre, many games have blended alot of elements across the whole spectrum, and developers should also not lie about what they sell.
I find it hilarious tho how the biggest "RPG" games are chopping off RPG game elements while others are picking them up to spice up the gameplay.
Stats obviously add a certain depth/complexity to games, but the majority of people don't like that and the majority brings in most of the cash... you can probably do the math.
I find it hilarious tho how the biggest "RPG" games are chopping off RPG game elements while others are picking them up to spice up the gameplay.
Stats obviously add a certain depth/complexity to games, but the majority of people don't like that and the majority brings in most of the cash... you can probably do the math.
Meh, I was never a big fan of the numbers. I don't need numbers to make my character special. Even without them the Shepard I made is *my* Shepard. I developed her looks, her origin, her attitude and decisions. And she's definitely not the same Shepard my friend made when he played the ME games.
And it's the same with all my other characters I made in various RPGs. They are not defined by the numbers.
I can see the appeal of the numbers but as far as I'm concerned the whole 'old-school' RPG mechanics may as well be abandoned.
And it's the same with all my other characters I made in various RPGs. They are not defined by the numbers.
I can see the appeal of the numbers but as far as I'm concerned the whole 'old-school' RPG mechanics may as well be abandoned.
I think what you are talking about is just one manifestation of RPG elements, that is, its one way to convey character differences and strengths/weaknesses. One must not confuse the first interpretation of RPG elements (numbers) as the only one, because its not the stats themselves that make a character unique, its the concept behind the RPG element that makes the difference.Traun said:
Lets look at how this RPG element (dunno what to call it) could manifest itself differently: When creating a character, instead of putting stats into strength, you would adjust a slider than made your character more buff. This would be applied the same way if you wanted the character to be more agile, you would make him leaner. So f.x. if you want to make a character that is a fast runner, you would give him strong leg-muscles and a lean body and so on and so on.
So you see, we could execute this RPG element in many wildly different and interesting ways, and this is what the industry and we as gamers loose out on if we continue to deny the genre evolution. We should encourage developers to push the envelope when it comes to what we think of RPG/FPS/RTS/whatever, we should be more accepting of experimentation when it comes to gameplay-concepts.
Also:
Thank you, i wish we could have more discussions that did not internally combust from all the flaming.Traun said:
Ranorak said:
Very true, and quite honestly I think there's a bit too much focus on the number-crunching aspects of RPGs as the definition of the genre. Aside from being a misnomer, they're usually just window-dressing in my opinion; a means to an end. RPGs, prior to the last decade or so, were generally accepted for having the best storylines in gaming. Japanese RPGs (any Final Fantasy) may have been rather light on the actual role-playing, but they were primarily driven by their plot. The combat systems aren't terribly boring, but their key purpose is mostly to keep the game from being merely one giant cutscene. Incidentally, the games do offer some control over the plot... but it usually minimal (choosing between event A and event B). Back to the story-telling in games, the last decade has seen other genres gaining decent if not phenomenal storylines in situations where there previously only was an excuse of a plot (if any at all). Compare Ocarina of Time to Twilight Princess, the latter has a significantly more elaborate plot no matter how you slice it; it's still not top-notch RPG storyline quality, but evidence enough that strong storytelling in games is no longer confined to the RPG genre. The closest analog to an RPG in terms of themes is the Action-Adventure genre, and the line between the two is becoming increasingly blurred as RPGs gain more action-oriented gameplay (leading to existence of the Action RPG subgenre) and Action-Adventures gaining more elaborate plots and even character progression.
As for what most strongly defines RPGs as unique right now is the existence of D&D-derived stats and roll-based combat systems. From my perspective, this is rather unfortuante because it's not great gameplay; more like min/maxing until you break the system and the game becomes a cakewalk. Declaring that number-crunching is the end-all of entertainment sounds practically absurd, but different strokes for different folks I guess. I believe that developpers used D&D stat systems mostly because it allowed them to created a larger and more story-driven game, not because it was particularly fun.
The RPG genre's trump cards are customization and choice, decisions which allow you to define your role (hence, role-playing). These predominantly come in two forms, choice of storyline and choice of gameplay. The Mass Effect series demonstrates these aspects with gusto, allowing your choices to significantly alter the plotline of the games and the different classes offer a great variety of playstyles. There is next to no random rolls which determine what you do, just how you've built your character. The statistics got pushed into the background for the second game in favour of more gameplay variety, the only loss being the ability to allocate upgrades into empty gear slots (which are returning for ME3). The only thing the series lacks in the traditional definition of an RPG is the use of random rolls and stat-based gameplay, everything else fits like a glove. That doesn't mean that Mass Effect isn't an RPG, only that RPGs don't have to use stat-based gameplay.
Hyper-space said:
But this is a statistics. Let me give you an example
Let's take the following slider:
Weak-----------------Strong
This is a visual representation of a scale from 0 to 10(or whatever numbers you like).
This is what's really going on:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Weak------------------Strong
So whatever you put the scale in the middle or have a box saying +4 strength it's the same thing.
By all means, I concur. If we limit ourselves to only one system we would have never had Fallout, Wasteland or The Elder Scrolls. I am all for innovation, this thread was meant to explain why numbers are good, not to say that anything without mathematics in it is bad.Hyper-space said:
D&D is a type of stat system, not a definition. I agree - the dice rolls were a bad system not intended, or capable, of taking advantage of computational power. I want to see game which use statistics in a user friendly, easily understandable manner. Take WoW for example - no one ever had a problem with understanding statistics in WoW.The Abhorrent said:
My case is that numbers are a great too for customization. Let me give you an example. For this exercise we will use pure theory - imagine that you could increase power, speed, endurance for Shephard(since Mass Effect seems to be in the spotlight).The Abhorrent said:
Don't like chest-high walls? Put points into endurance and go fight directly in the middle of the field.
Want to play the good 'ol Doom style? Put points into speed and start dodging.
Want powerful weapons? Put points into power and take advantage of the chest-high walls to protect your fragile body, while you deal massive damage.
Here is a simple theory how statistics could enrich the player's experience in Mass Effect.
I want to be clear, I am not advocating DnD system, "point and click" style RPG's like BG or non-action games. I want to say that numbers can improve our games ( just to be clear, sometimes numbers can be bad, in some cases, especially if the game is action based) it is better to just leave some things to the player skill, see Mount and Blade for a relatively well done blend between statistics and player skill).
While understanding the intent of stats in WoW is easy, the process of min/maxing has gotten unnecessarily complex at times. People routinely used spreadsheets to determine what's best, and there's a lot of peer pressure to optimize in WoW (and presumably other MMORPGs). These are a couple of the inherent issues with stat-based systems: min/maxing is usually considered mandatory rather than optional (especially prominent in group settings, and it ruins the entire point of customization), and that at times they can easily become excessively (and unnecessarily) complex.Traun said:
There will always be some version of stats in games, it's mostly just a matter if how close they are to the foreground. D&D-style systems put them right in the player's face, and what I'm mostly trying to say is that particular approach isn't critical to the identity of an RPG (along with the dependence on dice-rolls). Numbers work great, but it doesn't have to be numbers onscreen which is the absolute determination of an RPG.Traun said:
Stats are always fun to have and grind. It's a number that shows how good you are. Minecraft with McMMO = awesome.
The way I see it is, games using stats can be fun for the reasons you've listed, gives ultimate in replay value.
However, when people think (and people honestly do think) that the game should be purely dictated by stats without the player skill being remotely taken into account, then it's gone too far. Yeah I like to build my character how I want, but I still want to be involved in the game.
However, when people think (and people honestly do think) that the game should be purely dictated by stats without the player skill being remotely taken into account, then it's gone too far. Yeah I like to build my character how I want, but I still want to be involved in the game.
Main point of stats for me is in differentiating player from his or her character.
They allow me customize the character and play in ways i could not if i relied only on my own skills, i also tend to prefer turn based or turn/real time hybrid combat systems for the same reason.
Ofcourse, stats and turn based combat take one type of skill out of the equation (twitch gaming), but in return add a new type of skill (character building and turn based tactics)
They allow me customize the character and play in ways i could not if i relied only on my own skills, i also tend to prefer turn based or turn/real time hybrid combat systems for the same reason.
Ofcourse, stats and turn based combat take one type of skill out of the equation (twitch gaming), but in return add a new type of skill (character building and turn based tactics)
I thourght they were putting inventory management back in?bob1052 said:
if they were so important then why do I still enjoy ME2 so much? like ALOT more than ME1?
yes yes yes I know its subjective and all that but I honestly think that games strengths were in the dialogue and charachter interaction plus onece they fine tuned combat it was FUN!
anyway people shouldnt be making assumptions about ME3 yet,
and yeah its been disscussed and argued to death
You do have a valid point and I agree with you completely, though there are some limitations. Sure, you can mess with your stats to make different warriors, but on the other hand, tell me a wizard won't just be stacking intelligence. Then again, I suppose you could make him an arcane archer, or a battlemage...or...yeah, nevermind.
I think you have a nice point in how stats make the character yours. I always like to have them with an average charisma score (or the local equivelant) at the very least. I find it amusing to me because I like to think they are smooth talkers (or at least try).
It also works best in a non competetive and more open environment. Unlike, say, wow, where mages only get intellect, rogues get dexterity, etc.
I think you have a nice point in how stats make the character yours. I always like to have them with an average charisma score (or the local equivelant) at the very least. I find it amusing to me because I like to think they are smooth talkers (or at least try).
It also works best in a non competetive and more open environment. Unlike, say, wow, where mages only get intellect, rogues get dexterity, etc.
I haven't played Eve, but I just got off a 6 hour Warband session, so I definitely agree with that part.Plurralbles said:
This makes me happy. I mean, that was how I read the original announcement as well, but it is good to have confirmation.Magenera said:
Perhaps...
Perhaps it's about what stats control.
In D&D proper (as well as MMORPGs and some other RPGs), the player is removed from the action. He has a vague sense of control over the situation, but stats control the character's actions: whether he hits or misses, crits or fumbles. For an abstract game (esp. one of larger scope) this works well. The problem comes when the player expects skill to make a difference - as in an FPS or third-person action game - and feels cheated by the limitations of his stats.
Thus, I postulate that in any game with immediate control over the character's actions (in which you are playing, rather than controlling, your character), stats should have no effect on whether you hit or miss. If they do (say, a skill that increases your accuracy) the effects should be immediate and obvious (your reticule gets smaller). Especially, do not base failure on stats. Failure must be based solely on actions.
Where stats come in handy is mainly in calculating damage. They make it easy to represent to the player exactly what the difference between a rusty tin dagger and a shiny steel greatsword is. They provide a palpable feeling of satisfaction in a recent purchase or discovery. This is something that is lost in the typical FPS loadout of one gun per type, maybe two, and enemies that have roughly the same health and armor throughout. You can take your gun from the end of the game, carry it back to the beginning, and it will be no more effective than it was then. FPS games get away with this because you never acquire "replacement" items - but when you add in "RPG elements" - particularly the concept of upgrading equipment - it gets dicey.
The Mass Effect series straddles this line more exactly than any other game I have ever encountered, and we can see the effects in each iteration. Mass Effect 1 had a great upgrading component, but let the stats affect the player's actions, hurting the FPS half of gameplay. In contrast, Mass Effect 2 bulked up the FPS half considerably, but (sadly) lost much of what made the upgrading/RPG gameplay interesting. While it was (for the most part) fast-paced and interesting enough to make up for it, imagine how much better it might have been if it kept the finding of new guns and armor - the Diablo loot mechanic - in the game. Imagine if you had been able to equip different weapon mods, as you were in the first. If special ammo had been, not a power, but a resource. Imagine if some of Borderlands' weapon inventiveness had made it into Mass Effect 2! Instead, you purchase set "upgrades" and find new weapons lying around in specific spots - FPS style.
Mass Effect 2 is, to my mind, what singleplayer-focused first-person shooters should strive to be. It's a nonlinear, compelling, thirty-hour experience that manages to keep the player's interest throughout. It was made in just two years by a development house simultaneously juggling at least two other projects, and if other developers (*cough* Treyarch *cough*) would get the hint and start making games like it, I would be quite pleased - but it is no longer an RPG. It has sacrificed half of what it was by eliminating not just badly-used stats, but all stats. And that, I feel, is a great pity.
Perhaps it's about what stats control.
In D&D proper (as well as MMORPGs and some other RPGs), the player is removed from the action. He has a vague sense of control over the situation, but stats control the character's actions: whether he hits or misses, crits or fumbles. For an abstract game (esp. one of larger scope) this works well. The problem comes when the player expects skill to make a difference - as in an FPS or third-person action game - and feels cheated by the limitations of his stats.
Thus, I postulate that in any game with immediate control over the character's actions (in which you are playing, rather than controlling, your character), stats should have no effect on whether you hit or miss. If they do (say, a skill that increases your accuracy) the effects should be immediate and obvious (your reticule gets smaller). Especially, do not base failure on stats. Failure must be based solely on actions.
Where stats come in handy is mainly in calculating damage. They make it easy to represent to the player exactly what the difference between a rusty tin dagger and a shiny steel greatsword is. They provide a palpable feeling of satisfaction in a recent purchase or discovery. This is something that is lost in the typical FPS loadout of one gun per type, maybe two, and enemies that have roughly the same health and armor throughout. You can take your gun from the end of the game, carry it back to the beginning, and it will be no more effective than it was then. FPS games get away with this because you never acquire "replacement" items - but when you add in "RPG elements" - particularly the concept of upgrading equipment - it gets dicey.
The Mass Effect series straddles this line more exactly than any other game I have ever encountered, and we can see the effects in each iteration. Mass Effect 1 had a great upgrading component, but let the stats affect the player's actions, hurting the FPS half of gameplay. In contrast, Mass Effect 2 bulked up the FPS half considerably, but (sadly) lost much of what made the upgrading/RPG gameplay interesting. While it was (for the most part) fast-paced and interesting enough to make up for it, imagine how much better it might have been if it kept the finding of new guns and armor - the Diablo loot mechanic - in the game. Imagine if you had been able to equip different weapon mods, as you were in the first. If special ammo had been, not a power, but a resource. Imagine if some of Borderlands' weapon inventiveness had made it into Mass Effect 2! Instead, you purchase set "upgrades" and find new weapons lying around in specific spots - FPS style.
Mass Effect 2 is, to my mind, what singleplayer-focused first-person shooters should strive to be. It's a nonlinear, compelling, thirty-hour experience that manages to keep the player's interest throughout. It was made in just two years by a development house simultaneously juggling at least two other projects, and if other developers (*cough* Treyarch *cough*) would get the hint and start making games like it, I would be quite pleased - but it is no longer an RPG. It has sacrificed half of what it was by eliminating not just badly-used stats, but all stats. And that, I feel, is a great pity.
a) Regardless of whether they "matter" or not, I find stat-based gameplay to be mind-numbingly boring. For example, I don't want my ability to dodge be based on how many points I put into dexterity or whatnot. I want it to be based on my personal ability to think, "Oh crap, he's about to hit me, I'd better use the dodge button." I want to be participating in the action. I do not want to be sitting back and watching my little bundle of numbers hitting the enemy numbers on the head.
b) Differentiation of play-styles can be done without stats and spreadsheets, and done better. Take Bad Company 2 for example. Not a +1 Dex to be seen anywhere, but it still accommodates a range of styles. You can find a safe hidden little perch, call down mortar strikes and snipe from afar. You can armour yourself up, grab a shotgun and get in close, hunting down your targets with motion sensors. Or you can go medic and pick your way across the battlefield reviving team mates and keeping the injured in the fight.
b) Differentiation of play-styles can be done without stats and spreadsheets, and done better. Take Bad Company 2 for example. Not a +1 Dex to be seen anywhere, but it still accommodates a range of styles. You can find a safe hidden little perch, call down mortar strikes and snipe from afar. You can armour yourself up, grab a shotgun and get in close, hunting down your targets with motion sensors. Or you can go medic and pick your way across the battlefield reviving team mates and keeping the injured in the fight.