Wanting a PC focus, complexity, challenge and depth is NOT "nostalgia"

[mashakos]

You control the decision making of your character. You don't control how good they are at pulling off the required steps to execute your decisions.

lame!

Seriously, what does Role Playing have to do with Management sims? I always thought this line of thinking made sense with board games because of the limitations of the medium itself rather than a desire by "table top" game designers to keep players removed from the actual actions of the characters they play.

EDIT: To put it another way, actually performing the actions adds gravity to them. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...oFyUktY#t=190s

[dnf]

People always talk about nostalgia as remembering positive things, but there is a lot of reverse nostalgia in some arguments. Take Doom for exemple: Some people bitch about the level design in Doom as being too complex and defining it as a "key hunt fest".

Well I find this statement quite silly, because i played Doom 1 and 2 some months ago(first run BTW), and i find the level design very easy to navigate, only getting stuck in one level so far(out of what, 100?)! Maybe this kind of argument is generated by the level of suckiness of a portion of gamers at that time, that put the blame of their innability in the game and not themselves.

I remember my time in Doom fighting hordes of enemies, and not searching for coloured keys. If i where to criticize Doom by today standarts, the features would be the graphics and the gunfights(which where good in 94, today, not so much). Thankfully we have Brutal Doom to ease the dated features.

[Wizardry]

lame!

Seriously, what does Role Playing have to do with Management sims? I always thought this line of thinking made sense with board games because of the limitations of the medium itself rather than a desire by "table top" game designers to keep players removed from the actual actions of the characters they play.

Computer role-playing games are single player computer simulations of tabletop role-playing games. If you want to act out the actions required then what you probably want is a CLARP or something. Yes, I did make up that term, and yes, it does stand for computerised live action role play.

[dnf]

If you have a warrior that sucks at thief-like activities, you dont expect said warrior to be sucessfull at sneaking or other thief related stuff

[soldant]

Why are people arguing with Wizardry? I thought we'd all learned not to do that by now.

People always talk about nostalgia as remembering positive things, but there is a lot of reverse nostalgia in some arguments. Take Doom for exemple: Some people bitch about the level design in Doom as being too complex and defining it as a "key hunt fest".

I don't think anybody bitches about the levels being "too complex". The thing that people say about it is that it's not really non-linear. You still have a very specific path to take which you are placed on by hunting for keys and switches. It just increases backtracking to artificially extend gameplay time. There's still only one exit, one way to get there, and you'll need these keys in this order to do it.

But as with most things in retrospect, people relabelled it "non-linear level design" and hailed it as a golden age, when all it did was just create a load of backtracking. Doom (or really any sector-based engine) has excellent levels because they're fairly well paced - they're not too long for the most part, they incorporate a variety of spaces, and their abstract level design (a limitation of the technology) is aesthetically pleasing for most people (I love Doom 2's suburb/city areas for example, even though they might as well be anything). Ironically, some of the best PWADs depart from the backtracking and move towards more modern FPS design (like Action Doom) while maintaining a bit of exploration. Half Life levels are largely the same - it's still a very linear game but there are side rooms to look at to pick up ammo. The fact that you can get slightly sidetracked by exploring a storage closet does not make a level non-linear.

That's not to say that the endless desert corridors of your average CoD game are superior or vastly inferior (CoD games are heavily scripted, a highly linear design makes sense). But the idea that Doom levels were all awesome and represent a great example of non-linear design is flawed.

Also the endless demon hordes and gunplay is ultimately what makes Doom fun. But the downside of that is that players get fatigued easily when there's just an endless onslaught of enemies (something the Serious Sam games never got right, there's no pacing). Valve on the other hand are masters at establishing pacing.

[QuantaCat]

Also, why is there this aggressive tone to all posts? I dont get it.

(ignoring Doom here, as we are not "jazzing up" something from before that wasnt there)
Anyhow, thats why they are called Roleplaying Games: they give you a world to roleplay in. Or atleast, ideally. Im not saying make another 1980s pnp conversiony type CRPG, Im just saying that they shouldnt depend on any given thing, and just go to the core of what they *say* they are going to make. (there werent any computer game preconceptions back then, because the medium was so young; but of course, some TT preconceptions carried over)

Also, I hope they dont "faithfully" recreate Baldurs Gate with that Project Eternity, that would be made of suck. I wasnt the biggest fan of BG, though I know it was a great game for its time. (and I also knew it at the time, and yes, I played through the second one and its expansion as well as big parts of the first one + expansion) There are some serious flaws with BG, but not necessarily to do with "wrong" preconceptions, just a bad system.

[Heliocentric]

Also, why is there this aggressive tone to all posts? I dont get it.

Reader bias?

[BillButNotBen]

Also, why is there this aggressive tone to all posts? I dont get it.

because you're on an Internet forum and that's unfortunately how they are. Lately I've been trying to moderate my Internet language and be more open and constructive, but it involved writing huge disclaimers infront of any opinions, and it doesn't tend to work as people seem to read everything with an aggressive tone even if that wasn't how it was written.
---
I think there IS a huge amount of nostalgia in the mix, but that tend to be unavoidable. It's also the reason we get things like Transformers movies. It doesn't mean they shouldn't do it anyway.

I tend to find that nostalgia works the other way. People tend to complain about modern things based on nostalgia. I think they have to at least consider that the world and the market has changed, and that their nostalgic memories they are using as a point of comparison aren't always unbiased or accurate.

Sometimes the new version has different characteristics to the old one, but that can be a great thing or a terrible thing depending on your memories of the old one and how successful the new one is at what it attempts. On the other hand a new version that slavishly follows the old format can be great or awful depending on the suitability of the template - but it does sometimes seem a little redundant.

[deano2099]

Computer role-playing games are single player computer simulations of tabletop role-playing games. If you want to act out the actions required then what you probably want is a CLARP or something.

But the language has evolved to the point where people are just calling them RPGs now. Might not be ideal, but since far more people understand the later definition, if you really feel the distinction is important you may have more luck making up a new term for the former definition, CTRPG or something?

Anyway, the original article was entirely horrid. I want John's time machine so I can go play all these KS games, none of which are done yet, and many of which aren't even out of the design phase. The assumption that there will be nothing innovative in them because they're based on older games is insulting. Planescape was based on BG2, used the same engine even, yet was clearly an innovative game. Pretty much every old LucasArts point and click evolved and innovated somewhere - I'd be shocked if the Double Fine game doesn't at least include one new mechanic that hasn't been done before.

It's perfectly possible to make something in the style of something else while still innovating.

[Voon]

Oh, joy! Another "What's an RPG thread" on RPS! I'll get my popcorn

[fiddlesticks]

Oh, okay. I thought we were talking about PC games in the PC gaming forum. Fair enough then, but JRPGs fucking suck.

I'm a bit surprised you dislike JRPGs as a genre, considering they're often closer to earlier PC roleplaying games than most modern western RPGs nowadays are. Do you feel they took the wrong lessons from those older games?

Planescape was based on BG2, used the same engine even, yet was clearly an innovative game.

As much as I love Planescape, I'm not sure I would call it particularly innovative. The setting was unique to be sure, but in terms of gameplay it was very close to the other Infinity games, only with a greater focus on dialogue and a lesser focus on combat.

[Heliocentric]

Oh, joy! Another "What's an RPG thread" on RPS! I'll get my popcorn

"You people" are half of the problem.

[thesisko]

As much as I love Planescape, I'm not sure I would call it particularly innovative. The setting was unique to be sure, but in terms of gameplay it was very close to the other Infinity games, only with a greater focus on dialogue and a lesser focus on combat.

As opposed to more recent party-based RPG's like Dragon Age 1&2? Most of the "innovation" shown by party-based tactical RPGs post BG2/PS:T are in production values made possible by bigger budget.

And saying that the desire to play a party-based RPG with tactical combat is "nostalgia" because we have Mass Effect is a strawman, comparable to saying "You want turn-based strategy for nostalgic reasons, strategy has evolved to realtime now".

[deano2099]

As much as I love Planescape, I'm not sure I would call it particularly innovative. The setting was unique to be sure, but in terms of gameplay it was very close to the other Infinity games, only with a greater focus on dialogue and a lesser focus on combat.

It innovated in terms of theme. Notably by actually having one.

[Voon]

"You people" are half of the problem.

By being a bystander? Yeah, sure man. Reading a thread is definately a problem.

[Heliocentric]

By being a bystander? Yeah, sure man. Reading a thread is definately a problem.

[NathanH]

As opposed to more recent party-based RPG's like Dragon Age 1&2? Most of the "innovation" shown by party-based tactical RPGs post BG2/PS:T are in production values made possible by bigger budget.

DA2 had some innovations that were lost amid the crap. DA:O innovated in that it brought MMO aggro-based gameplay to single player party-based RTwP RPGs, although this innovation was probably not worth doing...

[Gray Guardian]

Mr Wizardry summed up his views perfectly IMO in the comment section of the Obsidian interview article, let me paraphrase 'Star Trail is one of the most complex rpgs ever, it had over 50 skills, sadly not all of them worked'. This demonstrates the mentality of more complexity, more numbers, more features, MORE EVERYTHING even if it doesn't work at all and has no purpose in enhancing the gameplay. I really don't think there is a point in arguing this kind of attitude.

[NathanH]

Mr Wizardry summed up his views perfectly IMO in the comment section of the Obsidian interview article, let me paraphrase 'Star Trail is one of the most complex rpgs ever, it had over 50 skills, sadly not all of them worked'. This demonstrates the mentality of more complexity, more numbers, more features, MORE EVERYTHING even if it doesn't work at all and has no purpose in enhancing the gameplay. I really don't think there is a point in arguing this kind of attitude.

Exactly right. Only a fool would think that the sensible evolution of a game that had a lot of complexity but didn't get it all right would be to make a game with a lot of complexity that did get it all right. Only a fool.

[dnf]

I don't think anybody bitches about the levels being "too complex". The thing that people say about it is that it's not really non-linear. You still have a very specific path to take which you are placed on by hunting for keys and switches. It just increases backtracking to artificially extend gameplay time. There's still only one exit, one way to get there, and you'll need these keys in this order to do it.

I think the non linear part that people talk about is the order of things you have to do to get to the exit. Sometimes you take the blue key first, sometimes you take the red,etc... Im not to fond of this kind of praise neither.
As for the backtracking, most games with complex level design have it, so i think is silly to criticize backtracking because is inerent to the design philosofy. For me, Thief Level design is perfect, yet there is lots of backtracking. So,to criticize backtracking is akin to asking for linear level design.

That's not to say that the endless desert corridors of your average CoD game are superior or vastly inferior (CoD games are heavily scripted, a highly linear design makes sense). But the idea that Doom levels were all awesome and represent a great example of non-linear design is flawed.

COD level design is non-existant,thus inferior(scripts dont take the role of good level design,sorry). Doom level design is good for the most part. Of course there exist games with better level design.

Also the endless demon hordes and gunplay is ultimately what makes Doom fun. But the downside of that is that players get fatigued easily when there's just an endless onslaught of enemies (something the Serious Sam games never got right, there's no pacing). Valve on the other hand are masters at establishing pacing.

im my experience, i find the enemy pacing in Doom good enough.