Vapourware RPGs that can legitimately be called masterpieces

[Lilura]

PS:T despite having little to no combat

This is a bald-faced lie parroted about by edgy PS:T fanboys and storyfags. PS:T has a lot of bad combat encounter design, mobs are everywhere, and they're not easy to avoid even when running like a coward and playing silly positional tricks (the game is not designed to be passive-run), as proven by me in my PS:T retrospective.

What a liar you are: Fallout, ToEE and even JA2 facilitate passive runs more naturally than PS:T. All three games require fewer kills, too.

 

[aweigh]

roleplaying mechanics and reactivity

good roleplaying mechanics

you only need to get those things [aweigh's note: mechanical systems that comprise the bulk of the gameplay]to a point where they're decent but what matters most is roleplaying

see, that's the crux of our disagreement. role-playing begins with the core mechanical systems, it doesn't begin after them. The combat, the exploration, the encounter design, the itemization, the power curve, all of those are roleplaying mechanics. If you get them "just good enough to be halfway decent" then you have made the role playing mechanics only halfway decent.

this is why earlier i assumed you were referencing codexian meme-style c&c, because you were talking like roleplaying and reactivity are things that operate independently of whether or not the game has good mechanical systems, like you just kind of said all-over again now by saying that "all that other stuff can just be done half-assed because what matters is that then the devs are able to focus on the roleplaying"; again, 'all that other stuff' that you say devs should do half-assed is the the actual role-playing, same as the stuff you imply to be the 'real' roleplaying stuff, if not outright more so.

Oh, obligatory remark that DE is not an RPG. It is closer to an adventure game or a CYOA, but that's another topic altogether. I always hate talking about DE because it is such a divisive and politically-charged game that it is impossible to talk about politely without devolving into insults about it.

PS:T is a full-fledged RPG, and its combat is as much a key part of its "role playing mechanics" as everything else; whereas DE is an adventure game/CYOA hybrid, so we definitely have fundamental disagreement on what constitutes an RPG.

 

[PrettyDeadman]

roleplaying mechanics and reactivity

good roleplaying mechanics

you only need to get those things [aweigh's note: mechanical systems that comprise the bulk of the gameplay]to a point where they're decent but what matters most is roleplaying

see, that's the crux of our disagreement. role-playing begins with the core mechanical systems, it doesn't begin after them. The combat, the exploration, the encounter design, the itemization, the power curve, all of those are roleplaying mechanics. If you get them "just good enough to be halfway decent" then you have made the role playing mechanics only halfway decent.

this is why earlier i assumed you were referencing codexian meme-style c&c, because you were talking like roleplaying and reactivity are things that operate independently of whether or not the game has good mechanical systems, like you just kind of said all-over again now by saying that "all that other stuff can just be done half-assed because what matters is that then the devs are able to focus on the roleplaying"; again, 'all that other stuff' that you say devs should do half-assed is the the actual role-playing, same as the stuff you imply to be the 'real' roleplaying stuff, if not outright more so.

Oh, obligatory remark that DE is not an RPG. It is closer to an adventure game or a CYOA, but that's another topic altogether. I always hate talking about DE because it is such a divisive and politically-charged game that it is impossible to talk about politely without devolving into insults about it.

PS:T is a full-fledged RPG, and its combat is as much a key part of its "role playing mechanics" as everything else; whereas DE is an adventure game/CYOA hybrid, so we definitely have fundamental disagreement on what constitutes an RPG.

This guy knows what he is talking about. I can say, because I know and understand everything there is to know and understand about crpg.

 

[Theldaran]

This about Western civilisation... I have to say I've seen The Outer Worlds nominated for several GOTY prizes (including best narrative).

You might be on to something here.

 

[Roguey]

If that's all that you truly think matters in RPG design then you'd probably be happier playing adventure games instead.

I wouldn't, because most adventure games don't have reactivity, and if they do, it's the Bioware-style cosmetic slight-changes-to-the-narrative variety.

 

[fantadomat]

no? ja 2 is a tactical crpg. grimoire is a blobber. i don't compare apples to oranges

Another non-committal coward.

Meh JA2 is far inferior to blobbers,especially to supreme blobber like Might and Magic 6!

 

[Lilura]

Meh JA2 is far inferior to blobbers,especially to supreme blobber like Might and Magic 6!

Blobbers suck. I only put them in the OP as a joke. Even Baldur's Gate is better than Might & Magic VI.

 

[fantadomat]

Meh JA2 is far inferior to blobbers,especially to supreme blobber like Might and Magic 6!

Blobbers suck. I only put them in the OP as a joke.

Not as funny as your fetish for that obscure game JA2.

 

[barghwata]

see, that's the crux of our disagreement. role-playing begins with the core mechanical systems, it doesn't begin after them. The combat, the exploration, the encounter design, the itemization, the power curve, all of those are roleplaying mechanics. If you get them "just good enough to be halfway decent" then you have made the role playing mechanics only halfway decent.

I understand your point of view and i am inclined to agree with it, an RPG that has shitty combat, exploration and encounter design is probably going to be well..... shitty, no suprises there but you're kinda exaggerating what i said, i didn't say you should completely half ass these things, they have to be good or at the very least decent for the game to be even considered a good one in the first place but these things alone don't necessarily make a good RPG because they're not the main priority in an RPG, the reason why i don't consider these things to be roleplaying mechanics is because many other genres can do them easily, Stalker for example has excellent combat, level design , great exploration etc.... and it's not even close to being an RPG, these things alone are not enough to make an RPG, what makes an RPG to put it simply is the depth of character building and progession and its impact on gameplay, rasing or lowering a stat by one point or choosing one skill over the other all have to be really important choices that deeply affect the way you play the game and have consequences that you'll have to live with throughout your entire playthrough, if an RPG doesn't at least provide this, then regardless of how good the combat is or how excellent the exploration or itemization is, it's not gonna be a good RPG, a good game sure, but not a good RPG, in Fallout if you choose to play a dumb character you won't be able to talk yourself out of most situations or even understand certain things, and people won't take you seriously through the whole game, things like these are what make a great RPG not a good combat system.

Let me tell you a secret: role-playing a singular protagonist promotes storyfaggotry and shitty systems. Give me an impersonal party of 18 any fucking day of the week.

See, the reason why i completely disagree with that is because to put it simply, in party based systems what happens generally is you end up making party compositions that are pretty balanced and for obvious reasons, you want to have some infantry for mid range combat, some snipers for long rang, some medics in case shit goes down etc..... the natural result of this is every run becomes the same, sure you can have some variation in your composition but nothing too drastic or else it will be impractical, i mean sure you can fuck around and make a party of only snipers if you want but that will just get your party obliterated the moment any enemies get too close or take them by suprise.

In singular protagonist RPGs you're stuck with what you have depending on the type of character you made, if your playing an uncharismatic character you won't be able to talk yourself out of shit and you won't have anyone to talk for you, if your playing a non combatant character you're shit out of luck since you can't get into fights forcing you to find more creative solutions to your problems using your other skills, this makes your character build much more impactful which makes for a better roleplaying experience.

And here's another secret: JA2 has more reactivity than Fallout: ending FMV slideshows are NOT reactivity. Indeed, that is pure shit. If it doesn't happen in-game it doesn't count. And this coming from someone who wrote about Fallout's reactivity and considers it 2nd-ranked all-time below Jagged Alliance 2.

This is an exaggeration, there are a lot of secondary quests that have consequences that occur in-game and sometimes even simple actions like bad mouthing somebody can get you in a lot of trouble or make a faction hate you.

This is a bald-faced lie parroted about by edgy PS:T fanboys and storyfags. PS:T has a lot of bad combat encounter design, mobs are everywhere, and they're not easy to avoid even when running like a coward and playing silly positional tricks (the game is not designed to be passive-run), as proven by me in my PS:T retrospective.

What a liar you are: Fallout, ToEE and even JA2 facilitate passive runs more naturally than PS:T. All three games require fewer kills, too.

What?? i have no idea what you're talking about, i played PS:T three times, two of those i avoided most combat easily as for the third one i got into fights but only because i was roleplaying an agressive violent character so i was basically asking for it.

 

[biggestboss]

Hot take: RPGs that solely rely upon NPC/faction reputation are a lot more reactive, fun, and immersive than RPGs with charisma/persuasion mechanics.

Agenda: I want to see many threads Infinitron will eventually have to split this one into.

 

[Theldaran]

Hot take: RPGs that solely rely upon NPC/faction reputation are a lot more reactive, fun, and immersive than RPGs with charisma/persuasion mechanics.

Agenda: I want to see many threads Infinitron will eventually have to split this one into.

Query: Why do you speak like HK-47?

 

[Farewell young Prince into the night]

This is a bald-faced lie parroted about by edgy PS:T fanboys and storyfags. PS:T has a lot of bad combat encounter design, mobs are everywhere, and they're not easy to avoid even when running like a coward and playing silly positional tricks (the game is not designed to be passive-run), as proven by me in my PS:T retrospective.

I found this to be true in my PS:T playthrough, especially during the "Curst Prison" segment. Up until that point, utilizing combat had been mostly optional and I was given plenty of opportunities to wiggle my way out of situations through diplomacy or by simply skirting around threats. Suddenly, during the last quarter of the game, combat seemed inevitable and I felt forced to resort to the awkward, slow combat system. Why is there such a dramatic tonal shift toward the end of a game which, up until that point, presents itself as being a choice-heavy, interactive storybook? It was jarring for my charisma/intellect-driven Nameless Juan, and more importantly: no longer fun.

Regardless, it was hard to hate the game because it did have some interesting party members (Dak'kon comes to mind) and lots of charm; equally difficult to love the game because of (my perceived) lack of choice concerning combat encounters and unending purple-prose.

 

[Jason Liang]

If that's all that you truly think matters in RPG design then you'd probably be happier playing adventure games instead.

I wouldn't, because most adventure games don't have reactivity, and if they do, it's the Bioware-style cosmetic slight-changes-to-the-narrative variety.

But Roguey, we're talking about *masterpiece* adventure games (or classic+ adventure games) like Maniac Mansion, Last Express, Lara Bow games...

Of course there's some limits to the way adventure games are designed. An adventure game doesn't want to leave you in a situation where the game is unsolveable or can't make progress for instance. So with adventure games you might have complicated routes but not true freedom as you might have in a Troika game for example.

In fact we can divide adventure games into two types -
1) the ones that are meant to be played and beaten once
2) the ones that you are meant to fail and keep failing until you learn how to advance

And the adventure games with reactivity pretty much always fall into category two (like the examples given above) and most usually have some sort of timer, timed events and time limits as well (think Varicella).

 

[Strange Fellow]

If you only rate adventure games with reactivity you're going to pass over most of the best games the genre has to offer.

 

[Tom Baker's Arse]

Wizardry 4
Wizardry 8
Pools of Radiance
The Bard's Tale
Underrail
Baldurs Gate 2

 

[Squid]

If you only rate adventure games with reactivity you're going to pass over most of the best games the genre has to offer.

It's as if an experience has a multitude of things that make it unique, interesting, fun, etc. Even music being chosen/written well and placed correctly or incorrectly can change a good bit of how we perceive something.

 

[Comte]

This is a bald-faced lie parroted about by edgy PS:T fanboys and storyfags. PS:T has a lot of bad combat encounter design, mobs are everywhere, and they're not easy to avoid even when running like a coward and playing silly positional tricks (the game is not designed to be passive-run), as proven by me in my PS:T retrospective.

I found this to be true in my PS:T playthrough, especially during the "Curst Prison" segment. Up until that point, utilizing combat had been mostly optional and I was given plenty of opportunities to wiggle my way out of situations through diplomacy or by simply skirting around threats. Suddenly, during the last quarter of the game, combat seemed inevitable and I felt forced to resort to the awkward, slow combat system. Why is there such a dramatic tonal shift toward the end of a game which, up until that point, presents itself as being a choice-heavy, interactive storybook? It was jarring for my charisma/intellect-driven Nameless Juan, and more importantly: no longer fun.

Regardless, it was hard to hate the game because it did have some interesting party members (Dak'kon comes to mind) and lots of charm; equally difficult to love the game because of (my perceived) lack of choice concerning combat encounters and unending purple-prose.

Its clear they rushed the game in the second half when it becomes railroaded and all combat. Same goes for Baldurs Gate 2 and VTMB the games become a railroad until the finish line in the second half.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Everything after finding Vhailor and up to the Fortress is eh.

 

[Lilura]

Underrail
Baldurs Gate 2

Into the iggy bin you go.

 

[Roguey]

Its clear they rushed the game in the second half when it becomes railroaded and all combat. Same goes for Baldurs Gate 2 and VTMB the games become a railroad until the finish line in the second half.

BG2 is mostly how they envisioned it, only they would have liked to have had more optional questing in chapter 6 (hence those barely-there wilderness areas you can suddenly visit). Chapter 7 is a straight-forward combat-dense crawl, but so are most Bioware endgames. If you do something so many times it must be on purpose.

 

[Sigourn]

Would you agree that combat is the most important aspect of an RPG?

A game with no combat cannot be an RPG. At its core, fighting is the most primal way of solving problems.

 

[anvi]

Codex is shit.

 

[Theldaran]

Would you agree that combat is the most important aspect of an RPG?

A game with no combat cannot be an RPG. At it's core, fighting is the most primal way of solving problems.

There are some dialogue-oriented RPGs and games where you can solve mostly anything just by talking, but they're not that many.

It's obvious that some situations can only be resolved by combat. Especially if you play the thousands-killing hero from Bioware games. Doesn't matter if you're the "stoic adventurer" or the psychopathic Evil character, you'll end up killing thousands.

 

[Alphard]

Would you agree that combat is the most important aspect of an RPG?

The most important aspect in a RPG is the choice. Choice how to make your avatar, choice about your build, choice how to approach obstacles the game throws at you. In a good rpg you should can approach level in many ways, including combat.
Yes combat is very important, but a game without combat can still be an rpg, but a game without choices to make can' t be one

 

[Theldaran]

Combat makes sense in a lot of situations, dialogue in a way more reduced set.

Just tell 1939 Nazi Germany that war is a bad idea. You'd get laughed at. I think the British tried this, and later Churchill mocked them for this.

Not stopping evil people when you can is being a total cuck and disgrace.

Just go and tell Raistlin, "no, I don't think it's a good idea that you become an all-powerful god".