As always, RPGWatch with the Turn-Based RPG reviews which Codex ignores: "Stranger of Sword City"

[Jasede]

I beat FF1 at level 9.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I beat FF1 at level 9.

But did you use a party of 4 white mages?

 

[Mustawd]

100% white party?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

100% white party?

I almost wrote "a party of four 110% white mages", but decided against it at the last second.

 

[Roguey]

But what I said makes perfect sense. Wizardry has no role playing (scripted and systemic reactions to your characters' actions), Fallout does.

 

[aweigh]

Roguey, role-playing isn't defined by story or by deciding which branch of the story-state you wish to interact with. If this was the case then any video game would be considered an RPG. It is ironic that the words you use, "scripted and systemic reactions to...", are exactly what Wizardry has the most of!

Trapped-chest scenario, class and race interaction, party and character advancement systems, non-linear itemization which is tied to game-world areas instead of being tied to specific monsters, plus an explicit focus on navigation of the game world (exploration) and, lastly and most importantly, a direct focusing of subtle resource management inherent to the D&D roots from which these games come from: these are basically the essential ingredients in the Wiz-formula, and, (not to overuse the word) ironically these are elements that are usually lacking the games that you consider to be RPGs.

There are many ways to point out elements from which the RPG "template" is drawn, and the Codex itself was founded on the intent of making threads about it all the way back in 2003.

I can assure you, though, that anyone who doesn't think the Wiz-blueprint does not contain a full measure of the RPG template simply isn't being objective enough, or to be more generous, simply isn't informed enough about RPG system design.

TL;DR: Choose-your-own-adventure type of RPGs existed long before branching dialog trees, and, as a matter of fact: these elements are not even native to the type of A/B/C story-state RPG you espouse.

The myriad of system interactions that come into play when a party is making all of the decisions regarding whether or not to inspect if a chest is trapped and then decide whether or not it is worth risk/reward ratio of disarming it and then, lastly, having to choose whether or not to return to town to identify the unknown item or to continue onwards contains more role-playing than any RPG where the only examples of systemic role-playing consists of A/B/C story-states.

Why? Because all of the possible outcomes and decisions involved in the trapped-chest scenario are drawn straight from the game's gameplay systems and are engineered to dovetail with the player's psychological approach to their exploration. Is it the most complex mesh of systems ever? Absolutely not, but it is still to this day, one of the simplest and most elegant exampls of emergent RPG design and gameplay one can utilize to showcase RPG game design.

And it consists entirely around player-driven choices which are based off the game's symbiotic game mechanics, and not around pure player fancy.

The type of RPG design favored by people who dismiss Wizardry's RPG elements are games that used to be called "Adventure Game Hybrids". I'll leave it to you to realize why...

 

[Jasede]

What aweigh here is saying in far too polite language is that Roguey is a dumb fucking cunt with no idea what an RPG is who needs to get the fuck out if he hates actual RPGs that we played since our childhood so much.

This stupid CYOA shit is exactly what ruined AoD. If wanted that crap I'd play fucking Lone Wolf books. Not that Fallout or Arcanum or PS:T don't have their place but considering all these dungeon and combat RPGs non-RPGs is the most idiotic thing I have read on the 'dex in ages. Holy fuck. Has Roguey ever played P&P? Some groups entirely revolve around combat. Hack & slash is a popular style of roleplaying and dungeon mastering, emphasizing dungeons and combat and ignoring story and playing pretend in favor of cold steel and phat loot.

This idiocy SICKENS me.

I need blackup!
mondblut

 

[Mustawd]

What aweigh here is saying in far too polite language is that Roguey is a dumb fucking cunt with no idea what an RPG is who needs to get the fuck out if he hates actual RPGs that we played since our childhood so much.

New sig.

 

[Roguey]

What aweigh here is saying in far too polite language is that Roguey is a dumb fucking cunt with no idea what an RPG is who needs to get the fuck out if he hates actual RPGs that we played since our childhood so much.

I'm quoting from the Book of Josh, one of the most brilliant designers on the planet.

This stupid CYOA shit is exactly what ruined AoD.

What ruined AoD was the Sierra adventure game-esque nature of failure. It wouldn't be a problem if all paths were validated.

Has Roguey ever played P&P?

Yes. Not much emphasis on combat, large emphasis on role playing.

Some groups entirely revolve around combat. Hack & slash is a popular style of roleplaying and dungeon mastering, emphasizing dungeons and combat and ignoring story and playing pretend in favor of cold steel and phat loot.

Sounds like a wargame with dungeons to me. "Dungeon crawler" and "hack and slay" are genres unto themselves, no role playing necessary. Customization is nice when done well of course, but also not necessary.

 

[aweigh]

Roguey, if "all paths are validated" then there is no consequence to choosing.

You're misusing the term "validation" in this context. This, however, does lead to an area of discussion regarding failure-states and win-states, which is an interesting discussion that can be had.

The way I see it is that most people think all of these gameplay mechanics need to be separated for some reason. In any case, the fact that some decisions lead to an early failure-state in AoD can be both a strength and it can also be a weakness; it depends on relationship between its game mechanics and the systems available for player interaction.

If the game markets itself as the ultimate CYOA-type of game and then leads the player to an early failure-state simply because they started the game and made "wrong decisions" then that falls into a category more closely related to bad area and level design, with a healthy dose of bad writing as well.

However, it doesn't automatically mean that an early fail-state = bad.

 

[Gregz]

Downloading Suikoden II thanks to this thread.

 

[aweigh]

Suikoden 1 and 2 are in my personal list of Top 10 RPGs of all time. I also enjoyed Suikoden 3 immensely, but it's not a "classic" like the first two.

Tried playing 4 but gave it up due to becoming bored of its slow-paced and badly written story and characters, and have never tried out the rest of the games.

 

[Roguey]

Roguey, if "all paths are validated" then there is no consequence to choosing.

False.

You can fail an objective and still continue on. One of the things I loved about Witcher 3: Blood and Wine was that when it came time for the mandatory-boss-fight-you-lose-in-the--following-cutscene, it doesn't insult your intelligence by forcing you to beat it. If your health runs down to zero, the cutscene kicks in. If you do go the extra mile and beat it, you get the reward of extra xp.

Though as JES states, the ideal scenario is one where there is no win state, merely different outcomes. But none except consistently bad playing should lead to "your character can't progress any further in this narrative."

 

[aweigh]

That Witcher 3 is an amazingly bad example of game design, let alone RPG design. What's even the point of playing it if the only difference is whether or not you watch a cut-scene or not?

I prefer RPGs which reward the player with actual game-play.

 

[Mortmal]

Basically, in term of aesthetic, are there any jRPGs which are more:

Than:

http://www.olderbytes.com/

 

[duanth123]

it doesn't insult your intelligence by forcing you to beat it.

This doublethink should be extracted and preserved for all eternity.

If the battle still requires thought and strategy, even though it may be a forced loss in the end, then what it possibly (depending on whether there exists good reason for its unwinnable nature) insults is the player's ego and effort, not their intelligence.

And suggests an undeserved and poorly handled story beat.

Insulting the player's intelligence (and incidentally stroking their ego a fair bit) would be not only creating an unwinnable fight (a real phenomenon in the real world), but then rewarding the no-effort player with temporary death proof status when they purposely lose.

Rather than the reward of bare survival/escape, which seems like an appropriate reward if the fight is unwinnable in the logical sense (meaning the enemy is overwhelmingly powerful by comparison or the player with no knowledge/means of how to harm the enemy.)

If you do go the extra mile and beat it, you get the reward of extra xp.

I don't see how some modest xp reward should be celebrated. Wouldn't a real reward (on top of the reward of letting the player progress with the game or perhaps maintaining the verisimilitude of an in-game universe where the player is not some invincible walking god) be some future consequence, such as modified second battle or change in quest line or maybe even the survival of an ally?

 

[aweigh]

I wonder if Roguey thinks Twitcher 3 is a "real RPG", especially compared to something turn-based like Wizardry.

 

[Roguey]

I don't see how some modest xp reward should be celebrated. Wouldn't a real reward (on top of the reward of letting the player progress with the game or perhaps maintaining the verisimilitude of an in-game universe where the player is not some invincible walking god) be some future consequence, such as modified second battle or change in quest line or maybe even the survival of an ally?

You're speaking in hypotheticals that wouldn't make sense at all given the characters and the situation they're in.

(but there actually is that kind of stuff later in the game)

I wonder if Roguey thinks Twitcher 3 is a "real RPG", especially compared to something turn-based like Wizardry.

The Witcher 3 is a great role playing game. Wizardry is a dungeon crawler, allegedly of high quality, but I have no interest in playing such a thing.

Additionally, some of the Bradley Wizardries and 8 are alleged to have role playing, but I still have no interest in playing them.

 

[duanth123]

You're speaking in hypotheticals that wouldn't make sense at all given the characters and the situation they're in.

Yes, because I'm imagining a better written, more sensical unwinnable fight and attached storyline that wouldn't need to be salvaged by some basic xp reward.

 

[Roguey]

Yes, because I'm imagining a better written, more sensical unwinnable fight that wouldn't need to be salvaged by some basic xp reward.

The writing was fine.

You're fighting a higher vampire. It's Witcher canon that higher vampires literally can't be killed by anything except another higher vampire.

 

[felipepepe]

Basically, in term of aesthetic, are there any jRPGs which are more:

Than:

Dragon's Dogma is exactly that:

 

[Sacred82]

There are games with strong mechanics for autists and games with good world building for theatre group rejects. Why can't they get along?

Oh right.

 

[aweigh]

are you saying that wizardry 1's backstory of a king going insane and just for laughs building a 10 floor dungeon under his castle isn't the epitome of "world building"

thats like, better writing than PoE

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

http://www.olderbytes.com/

Dragon's Dogma is exactly that:

I suck at twichers so its pointless me trying. The others two are blobbers by the look of it and if I wanted to play blobbers then there's likely a huge amount of blobbers I'll be playing before getting to those, such as Lords of Xulima which is in my Gog library waiting for a computer upgrade.

Also, DD is absolutely jam packed with respawns/grinding.

I agree that both games have the right aesthetic though. Its often the way when posts go haywire and people get hung-up on some specific point or other, but my original inquirey/criticism was how I'd like to try more jRPGs but for the emphasis on grinding (to which the sub-divisions of grinding are such things as respawns, random encounters, repetativeness, etc etc etc). Then I rose the issue of aesthetic after inevitably being shown games that look like saturday morning cartoons. I'd prefer isometric over first person blobber and no twitchers tyvm.

Then spekkio has a major rant about how dare I have preferences and he's fed up people sharing their preferences and how he doesn't give a fuck about what I do or don't like and how I should just fuck off.

Because asking for a non-grindy isometric RPG that isn't a twitcher or a saturday morning cartoon is such a ginormous ordeal to imagine, I'm sure there are literally zero wRPGs that even come close to such a request, right. Are there any jRPGs that offer the same kind of experience as the basic template of an average western RPG?

 

[GrainWetski]

Well, this thread went to Polish action games quickly.