So Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines will be a decade old this year. LET'S TALK ABOUT OTHER RPG'S

[ZagorTeNej]

Delete post.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Role-playing shooters have moved away from this nonsense...

Moved away from that into systems where you can tell no fucking difference between a starting character and the one with a maxed gun skill. Atleast in Deus Ex and Bloodlines I got something in return for investing in the skill, especially Deus Ex did a great job in that regard (everything from accuracy, damage, reloading time and in some cases even movement speed was affected by upgrading weapon skills).

because it's dumb and not fun.

For consoletards and casual players (which unfortunately do make up the vast majority of the market).

 

[Akasen]

I keep reading all this stuff at like three in the morning. I want to write shit, but I'm too tired to write shit.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

We are talking in the context of CRPGs

And?

Unless you're running some sort of "the CRPG genre is a small set full of only games that, a priori, suck at delivering satisfying core gameplay" schtick, this isn't much of a defense of New Vegas. Quality cRPGs manage to provide the player with core gameplay elements roughly on par with satisfactory games that they share a mechanical lineage. Good third-person action-RPGs can stand on their own next to third-person action games. Way of the Samurai, Demon's/Dark Souls, Devil Summoner, etc. aren't quite Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry, but they stand up reasonably well, whether by the strength of their core mechanics or the synergy of the progression elements in tandem with said core mechanics. Dragon's Dogma is good enough that it can stand side by side with the best of the (non-RPG) genre it draws most from. Blobbers and crawlers have few direct comparisons.

RPGs with shooter genes do exist, and New Vegas doesn't stack up well against them. It has boring enemies, a paucity of interesting mechanics, and no creativity to make up for it. It's not that it doesn't compare well against, say, DooM/SeriousSam/Painkiller...it's that it compares very unfavorably with Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect, or Bloodlines. That's bad news as far as core gameplay is concerned.

 

[Excidium]

it compares very unfavorably with Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect, or Bloodlines.

Crockshit

 

[Nikaido]

Mass Effect is nothing but Bioware's interpretation of Gears of Fag. F:NV can't be worse than that. Cover shooters are for special kids.

As for Alpha Brotocol everything about its gameplay mechanics screams down syndrome.

 

[TheGreatOne]

Role-playing shooters have moved away from this nonsense because it's dumb and not fun.

I moved away from New Vegas because it's mundane and not fun. Atleast I could tolerate it longer than Dragon Age 2.

Like Edward put it, New Vegas has shitty gameplay because we've all played shooters that have superior gameplay. Show me a non-RPG that has as good gameplay as Wizardry, Grimoire or Nocturne. Thought so. Even good SRPGs are almost as good as regular turn based tactics games (which there are not that many of, and they tend to have RPG elements/be classified as SRPG/TBT hybrids).
SS2 and DX have better gameplay than NV due to

they stand up reasonably well, whether by the strength of their core mechanics or the synergy of the progression elements in tandem with said core mechanics.

SS2 does it the best, DX fails at this once you become super strong. None of the FPS RPGs do this nearly as good as Demon/Dark Souls. NV and VTMB suck, but atleast VTMB has spells and blood sucking to make up for it so you don't have to suffer nearly as much.

Furthermore, that video you posted is stupid because it's someone using the first gun available on a traveling merchant who intentionally has a large amount of health to survive attacks in the wasteland.

How the fuck does some fat middle aged merchant just decide that since he's more prone to attacks due to his occupation, he should really be able to sustain 35 headshots at a close range? It's not like .22 LR or .500 S&W makes much difference in real life, you get shot in the head and you're fucked.
RPGs have scaling, but 35 headshots to take down one single enemy is fucking retarded and horrible gameplay.

As Josh has mentioned before, Fuckin' Lethal gunplay is Not Fallout and reduces the number of supported playstyles.

First person shooters are Not Fallout.

Well you better leave us casuals behind and find a more hardcore PC RPG forum oh wait you're fucked.

This forum also loves the original Fallouts fanatically so if you're making the claim that a game based on the Fallout 3 gameplay engine is better than the two games that have always been in the TOP 3, I'd suggest the same thing to you and Roguey. Atleast when you stand up for Gold Box and Wizardry school of design you're defending golden age, pre decline CRPG design. Same can't be said about first person shooters on the Xbox 360.

 

[One-and-a-half-Ivan]

This forum also loves the original Fallouts fanatically so if you're making the claim that a game based on the Fallout 3 gameplay engine is better than the two games that have always been in the TOP 3, I'd suggest the same thing to you and Roguey. Atleast when you stand up for Gold Box and Wizardry school of design you're defending golden age, pre decline CRPG design. Same can't be said about first person shooters on the Xbox 360.

In terms of freedom, C&C, quests and dialogues FNV is better than F1-2. Though I do love F2 more because of nostalgia.

 

[Roguey]

the mechanics are solid and the combat is much better too.

Even Stealth (something that Sawyer is so fond of) is also much better in Bloodlines.

The color/number meter is much better than "hidden/caution/danger" with no numbers, yes, but stealth itself in 3/NV is better because with only two points in stealth you're practically invisible to all enemies in dark rooms in Bloodlines even when you're right in front of their face and touching them, whereas that's not possible in New Vegas even with a skill of 100. Wesp improved this a bit with his plus patch, but he's not a Troika employee.

Like Edward put it, New Vegas has shitty gameplay because we've all played shooters that have superior gameplay.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/50362-isnt-it-ironic/page-3#entry876250

It's true that, by the simple nature of allocated time, a game that splits focus between multiple types of gameplay will have a lot of difficulty matching a game dedicated to a single (or at least fewer) types of gameplay. But you can still use a focused subset of features. For example, I think Oblivion's stealth was pretty enjoyable. It was honestly the first time in ages that I've enjoyed using stealth in an RPG. Their stealth mechanics were nowhere near as robust as those in Splinter Cell or Thief, but they were still satisfying.

I've also played shooters with worse gameplay. New Vegas does a decent enough job and has a bunch of other features to make up for its shortcomings.

Show me a non-RPG that has as good gameplay as Wizardry, Grimoire or Nocturne.

Of course it's no surprise you're mentally damaged.

SS2 and DX have better gameplay than NV due to

they stand up reasonably well, whether by the strength of their core mechanics or the synergy of the progression elements in tandem with said core mechanics.

But they have system failures and unenjoyable-feeling combat.

To quote Josh "As long as we feel that we hit (our) goals and the majority of players agree, we can't worry about the margins who a) never agreed with those goals or b) don't feel we met them. It's just not a productive way to go about design."

Regarding SS2: Did the designers believe they met their goals? Considering Bioshock's clunky-SS2-style gameplay was scrapped to make it feel like a better (but ultimately still not very good) shooter, I'd say no. Did the majority of players agree they hit their goals? Considering the bandaid that is ADaoB, and the consensus regarding the usefulness and uselessness of certain skills and weapons, I'd say no.

Regarding Deus Ex: Did the designers believe they met their goals? Considering the changes Harvey Smith made in Invisible War, no. Human Revolution didn't return to the shrinking reticule, so they also agreed with his assessment. Did the majority of players? Well, Josh wouldn't say something like "No actual human being likes this" without data to back it up. Deus Ex fans had a negative reaction to many aspects in Invisible War, and some in HR, but not so much when it came to how gunplay is handled, so I'd say no.

Regarding New Vegas: Did Josh believe his met his goals? Many of them, yes. Did the majority of players? Considering the large number of people who wanted more of Fallout 3-but-better, all the Surviving The Wasteland stories he's read, and the comments I've read from people who wished there was even more combat, I'd say yes, for the most part.

Welcome to the margins.

How the fuck does some fat middle aged merchant just decide that since he's more prone to attacks due to his occupation, he should really be able to sustain 35 headshots at a close range?

Because Bethesda didn't want fragile traveling merchants who drop at the slightest provocation.

It's not like .22 LR or .500 S&W makes much difference in real life, you get shot in the head and you're fucked.

Oh my god you're really using "But.. but.. real life...!"

Oh no, that guy survived a critical hit to the eyes from point-blank range, game sucks, where's the realism?????

RPGs have scaling, but 35 headshots to take down one single enemy is fucking retarded and horrible gameplay.

He's not an enemy, he's a merchant. Low-level enemies don't take "35 headshots."

First person shooters are Not Fallout.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=127

Considering all the excitement about Bethesda's getting the Fallout license, what is a Fallout game? As a FO developer, at what point it stops being a Fallout game and starts being something entirely else?

I think any game that maintains the basic art style, mood, conversation style, and themes of the first two Fallout games can fit. I think you could make a first-person Fallout game that seemed like it took place in the same world as the first two games. Of course, history has shown that you can make a third-person console action game that doesn't fit.

Looks and sounds like Fallout to me.

 

[Nikaido]

It's not like .22 LR or .500 S&W makes much difference in real life, you get shot in the head and you're fucked.

Oh my god you're really using "But.. but.. real life...!"

Oh no, that guy survived a critical hit to the eyes from point-blank range, game sucks, where's the realism?????.

Bbbut f-fallout ccc-can't do n-n-no wrong?

Only with nostalgia goggles one would act like New Vegas isn't a true successor to the Fallout franchise. It's the best fallout ever made. I like turn based combat as much as anyone else in this place but Fallout's TB sucked hard cocks (the whole game consisted in doing repeated eye shot over and over with almost no tactics. It's no Jagged Alliance. Fallout had shit combat.) so I don't really see the gunplay in NV as a downgrade.

 

[Irenaeus]

I see it as a downgrade.

 

[TheGreatOne]

Yes, Original Fallout had horrible combat. How many times must I repeat that? 3 and New Vegas have simplistic combat that also feels bad so they're even worse.

Spoiler

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/50362-isnt-it-ironic/page-3#entry876250

I don't want to look at his smug, androgynous face. He also compliments Oblivion so all in all, very pointless.

Of course it's no surprise you're mentally damaged.

Wizardry has bad gameplay but "LOL FUNNY EXPLODING HEADS" popamole (it's not cover based shooting but might aswell be) has great gameplay? You're a casual gamer who can't handle actual RPGs (hiking simulators aren't proper games). You're an enemy of the CRPG genre. You think the same way like Xbros who think Fallout 3 and Oblivion are "AWESOME" and those games with in-depth party creation are boring relics from the 80s.
How does it feel that once Grimwah will be released, Sawyer will fade into obscurity? Not that he's very relevant even now. It takes one loon in a basement to out do everything he has ever done or accomplished in his life. And it already happened in 2009, so it's not like it would be the first time.

To quote Josh "As long as we feel that we hit (our) goals and the majority of players agree, we can't worry about the margins who a) never agreed with those goals or b) don't feel we met them. It's just not a productive way to go about design."

The majority is 4,8 million Xbros who bought Fallout 3 and you. The margins are people who actually played the originals.

Regarding SS2: Did the designers believe they met their goals? Considering Bioshock's clunky-SS2-style gameplay was scrapped to make it feel like a better (but ultimately still not very good) shooter, I'd say no.

Bioshock wasn't made by Looking Glass. It was designed to be more accessible. It als removed the survival horror and RPG elements to be a more straight up shooter (increasingly more so with each iteration).

Regarding Deus Ex: Did the designers believe they met their goals? Considering the changes Harvey Smith made in Invisible War, no.

Every one hates Invisible War. Richard Garriott thought and still thinks that turning Ultima into a medieval SIMS was the right way to evolve the series. Though seeing how popular Elder Scrolls games are, that made financial sense.
What the developer thinks is irrelevant if the end result is making the sequel less of a CRPG. If you're going to appeal to majority and numbers, then I'll do too: MOST gamers think that original Fallouts are horrible, boring games and Fallout 3 fixed that problem, it's more fun. Which is a more true CRPG: Fallout or Fallout 3?

Well, Josh wouldn't say something like "No actual human being likes this"

Yeah, he'd say something more along the lines of "there's this creepy tranny who's stalking me online and thinks I'm his boyfriend"

Deus Ex fans had a negative reaction to many aspects in Invisible War, and some in HR, but not so much when it came to how gunplay is handled, so I'd say no.

Did I claim that Deus Ex's gunplay was good or that it couldn't be improved? No, I said it was mediocre, better than that of NV. The gunplay was much improved in HR at the expense of the RPG elements. Like I said, there hasn't been a single FPP RPG with great gameplay, and I don't believe it's possible to do that until some one proves me wrong. How ever, DX and SS2 succeeded in that better than NV and VTMB due to the fact that they had better gunplay and combat, even if they left much to be desired.

Regarding New Vegas: Did Josh believe his met his goals? Many of them, yes.

I dont give a shit about Sawyers design goals until he actually proves that he can make a quality CRPG with good gameplay. Seeing how much he likes to talk about all these design concepts, you'd think he'd be able to put them together if one delusional french guy could do it with out a budget or any help.

Because Bethesda didn't want fragile traveling merchants who drop at the slightest provocation.

If merchants are such godlike combat machines, then they should be a playable class. Why bother making a warrior if a traveling salesman has 20 times as much health? Maybe they could even have one as a final boss. Oh wait you can't have proper boss fights in modern AAA RPGs because that would require tactics and like we all know, that is for mentally damaged people. One shotting the final boss with a shotgun blast to the face is for real gamers (ok, that was F3)

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YkI5hAN5FU&t=4m16s
So much depth


Poor ass gameplay

And before you mention it: yes the original Fallout's bosses were nothing to write home about either.

Oh my god you're really using "But.. but.. real life...!"

Of course games have varying degrees of unrealism, but it has to make sense in the context (scaling etc).

Oh no, that guy survived a critical hit to the eyes from point-blank range, game sucks, where's the realism?????

Yes, one shot. 34 to go.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=127

...

Had nothing to do with the original duo. You could replace his name with Todd Howard's and it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[Nikaido]

That pic in your spoiler area is half-wrong when it comes to New Vegas so why even bring that kind of shit up? too much assburger son. And some of the parts could be used to bash on Fallout 1/2 just as much. "SHOOT THE HEAD SHOOT HEAD" no shit what kind of idiot did anything but shoot the fucking head/eye in Fallout anyway ? It's literally the only gameplay you find there. Shoot the fucking eye when your turn comes. The end.

Fallout New Vegas is better than the original fallout in every single way except for one thing, movement. I'd wager a solid amount of time spent in that game is spent just walking because they inherited the Beth open world mindset while I'd rather point and click in a map to get to point of interests. That's really the only thing I feel inferior to the original Fallout, and it's bad enough that I can't really enjoy multiple playthroughs despite loving everything else about the game, but I just can't stand games where menial tasks such as walking around take a sizeable percentage of your game time.
Same reason why I bless the CTRL J "cheat" command on BG2. I don't use it during combat but when I'm just going from point A to B in cities you bet I'm not waiting for my characters to get there. I wouldn't even have played the game more than once without that since that game can get really bad in the amount of going back and forth as the errand boy.

 

[Irenaeus]

I guess you people really hate Fallout 1 and 2.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

That pic in your spoiler area is half-wrong when it comes to New Vegas so why even bring that kind of shit up? too much assburger son. And some of the parts could be used to bash on Fallout 1/2 just as much. "SHOOT THE HEAD SHOOT HEAD" no shit what kind of idiot did anything but shoot the fucking head/eye in Fallout anyway ? It's literally the only gameplay you find there. Shoot the fucking eye when your turn comes. The end.

Depends on your build, you could go for a "fast shot" big gun user who can't use aimed shots at all, or you can go unarmed/melee build that sneaks a lot, also shooting in the legs is a decent tactic against melee juggernauts like Deathclaws. Overall I just feel that attributes, perks and skill investment affect combat to a much larger degree in original Fallouts than in FNV in which the shooting part felt disjointed from actual character creation/build.

 

[Nikaido]

Depends on your build, you could go for a "fast shot" big gun user who can't use aimed shots at all, or you can go unarmed/melee build that sneaks a lot, also shooting in the legs is a decent tactic against melee juggernauts like Deathclaws. Overall I just feel that attributes, perks and skill investment affect combat to a much larger degree in original Fallouts than in FNV in which the shooting part felt disjointed from actual character creation/build.

That doesn't really change anything from a pure gameplay point of view. So you're trading HEADHEADHEAD for OMGINSTANTMURDERCRITICAL (did a Bozar playthrough there wasn't anything that didn't get torn in one or two clicks) clicking on people without aimed shots, it's still very much the same thing in terms of mechanics, you're just changing the name of the weapon category and have to click one less thing to activate your action. It's not like the game suddenly gains any depths by running a big gun. The point of his pic's criticism is that you just constantly repeat the same action over and over (whether it's Fallout 3's HEADHEADHEAD or Fallout 1 headheadhead versus nontargeted nontargeted nontargeted bigguns.. it's all sameshit okay?) Fallout has arguably one of the worst combat system because there is nothing worse than TB without depth. TB is fun when it has depth (see: XCOM, JA2) but it's complete utter garbage when it's done in Fallout's way. Yes I'd take even Oblivion's combat system over Fallout's. Waiting turn by turn for combat that has no depth.. just, no.

I've never done an unarmed/melee build, so I can't really say anything about that. Just doesn't feel like it'd make sense to me in that setting but whatever.

 

[Lhynn]

I liked the mood and the tone of F1 much more than i did F2 and FNV.

Nikaido dont be a retard, all games turn to easy mode when you know exactly when you are doing. Fallouts 1&2 werent the hardest games, but they could be pretty unforgiving. Plus fallout combat was a joy with those gory crits and the animations and sound, fucking awesome, especially back then.

 

[Shadenuat]

Roguey is <...> an enemy of the CRPG genre.

'twas bold, I loved this one

...have no idea what the hell is all argument about though.

 

[karfhud]

Roguey is <...> an enemy of the CRPG genre.

'twas bold, I loved this one

...have no idea what the hell is all argument about though.

In the TToN thread they keep blabbing about New Vegas and FPS; here we've got Fallouts grilled over again.

 

[Irenaeus]

This thread was once about Bloodlines, in the distant past.

 

[Paul_cz]

I love Bloodlines so much I even bought Secret World just yesterday because I was told it had a bit similar feel in its atmosphere, even if it is a fucking MMO, genre I despise.

 

[undecaf]

This thread was once about Bloodlines, in the distant past.

Everything ultimately comes back to Fallout. It's a law of nature.

 

[Roguey]

Wizardry has bad gameplay but "LOL FUNNY EXPLODING HEADS" popamole (it's not cover based shooting but might aswell be) has great gameplay?

I never said it was great. "There are no great RPGs"-- a thing I've been very consistent about.

You're a casual gamer who can't handle actual RPGs (hiking simulators aren't proper games). You're an enemy of the CRPG genre. You think the same way like Xbros who think Fallout 3 and Oblivion are "AWESOME" and those games with in-depth party creation are boring relics from the 80s.

What an utterly absurd statement. How very No True Scotsman of you.

Josh Sawyer was introduced to crpgs with The Bard's Tale and continued to play them as a fan until he became a developer.

How does it feel that once Grimwah will be released, Sawyer will fade into obscurity? Not that he's very relevant even now. It takes one loon in a basement to out do everything he has ever done or accomplished in his life. And it already happened in 2009, so it's not like it would be the first time.

Ohhhhhhhhh, now I get your problem. It's those neanderthal genes.

The majority is 4,8 million Xbros who bought Fallout 3 and you. The margins are people who actually played the originals.

"Everyone who played the originals hates New Vegas" is an untrue statement considering the number of people here who like it, as well as me. I played the Fallouts ages ago.

Bioshock wasn't made by Looking Glass.

And you think SS2 was?

Richard Garriott thought and still thinks that turning Ultima into a medieval SIMS was the right way to evolve the series.

This is a bad example considering the players did not believe he met his goals.

What the developer thinks is irrelevant if the end result is making the sequel less of a CRPG.

"We listen to the vocal players, who in many cases are wrong-headed."--Josh Sawyer, describing you.

If you're going to appeal to majority and numbers, then I'll do too: MOST gamers think that original Fallouts are horrible, boring games and Fallout 3 fixed that problem, it's more fun.

The keyword in Sawyer's statement is players i.e. the target audience for the game in question.

If you really want everyone from grandmas to babies to enjoy playing your game, you have to be willing to really alter the experience a lot. If you're making Elitist Cool Guy Video Game 2010, then you're probably going to a) focus test a very specific group of people b) ignore a lot of negative feedback if it goes against a different goal than "making people happy".

Which is a more true CRPG: Fallout or Fallout 3?

Twoo aww pee geez is not a concept I'm willing to entertain.

Neither of 'em met their goals though Fallout 1 met more for me.

I dont give a shit about Sawyers design goals until he actually proves that he can make a quality CRPG with good gameplay. Seeing how much he likes to talk about all these design concepts, you'd think he'd be able to put them together if one delusional french guy could do it with out a budget or any help.

He has to ship a game that isn't a sequel to someone else's flawed foundation first, and he will in a few months.

That one delusional French guy is both a designer and a programmer and he did hire people to create art and to playtest.

If merchants are such godlike combat machines, then they should be a playable class. Why bother making a warrior if a traveling salesman has 20 times as much health?

Are you just pretending to be dumb now?

Of course games have varying degrees of unrealism, but it has to make sense in the context (scaling etc).

I disagree.

Had nothing to do with the original duo. You could replace his name with Todd Howard's and it wouldn't make any difference.

Tim Cain played and liked both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Right now he takes orders from Josh.

 

[Excidium]

This guy got Roguey so riled up she became VD

 

[Delterius]

"Roguey you are a casual gamer with horrible taste."

"I'll have you know that Josh Sawyer was raised on Bard's Tale!"

>> Confirmation Roguey is Sawyer hiding his twitch of speaking on the third person.