Jump to content

What art thou playing milord? Ye Olde Thread 3.0


Mackaxx

Recommended Posts

Medieval: Total War I

My laptop isn't up to running the sequel to this game. I bought it about 3 years ago, having no knowledge of how/what it was. I fell in love with it, especially with the blurb on the back that declared it had "Infinite re-playability." It has had that. I am currently playing a campaign as the Polish. I usually play pretty conservatively, building up enough forces to just overwhelm my enemies. This time, I decided to try swift expansion and attacking neighbors that get in my way. And I took over the seas as well, shoving the Italians and English out of my way to maritime power.

The Mongols are set to invade pretty soon. I purposefully left Kazhar open so that the Mongols will arrive and then spread themselves in trying to conquer new provinces. When they do that, my horse and spear stacks will simply envelop them from all sides, giving me complete control of everything north of the Black Sea and east of Silesia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it I'm not allowed?

I don't want to continue the ridiculous argument from before wherein I was apparently objectively incorrect for having a different subjective opinion, but I want to clarify two things in a short and simple manner:

- I have played all the usual suspects regarding extremely well-regarded western RPGs, barring the really old stuff like Pools of Radiance or Ultimas/Wizardry/etc. Of the 'big three', I found Fallout 1/2 to be excellent but still representative of my general complaints regarding the genre, PST to be good but not as good as people say and not my cup of tea, and I avoid mentioning my opinion on BG1/2 because speaking it apparently is held by many religions as worse than murder.

- My statement that I do not enjoy the aspect of western RPGs in which one develops the character's personality by choosing from a limited list of actions was inexplicably extrapolated by two people to mean that I wish that these games would remove this element. Rather, I wish that these games would improve their implementation of that element so that the list of actions is much more inclusive; barring that, they can remain what they are and I will not enjoy that type of game as much as other people will. Contrary to the beliefs of some people, it is not necessary to be offended by the existence of a game that one does not enjoy or a person who enjoys a game that one does not also enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry kurokaze, the Indoctrination Patrol will be around shortly to help you re-evaluate your life and gain a proper appreciation for culture.

Following the Mass Effect discussion in the other thread, and a discussion about female characters over on reddit's /r/gaming, I picked it up again to play it specifically with a female character and to sort of refresh my memory about it now that Mass Effect 2 is approaching. The first time through it I was your average Action Movie Hero character, a brutish-looking John Shepard with the Soldier archetype, dedicated to all that is Just and Good and just slaying bodies left and right. This time I picked the Infiltrator archetype (pistols and sniper-rifles, and a fairly well-rounded Tech get-up) thinking it would offer me a slightly different approach to the game. I also went with a more renegade-y story to my character, a hard-as-nails Jane Shepard who won't flinch at any violence she needs to dish out in order to get the job done.

The renegade stuff isn't showing as much as I thought it would, but then I'm still early in the game, and from what I recall your character's morality or whatever you want to call it only really comes into play about half-way through the game. It also doesn't differ all that much from how I played the first time through, the Infiltrator class is basically the Soldier class only you can't train Assault Rifles or Shotguns, limiting your weapon choices. I don't know if this will change later on as I develop my non-weapon skills further, but right now it's just sort of a crippled Soldier. But with all the violence in this game, I don't think I could play it with a Sentinel (Biotic) or Engineer (Tech) class character. I like the game a lot, but it seems like they could have offered other paths through it where you wouldn't use as much direct violence as you have to do now, giving a purpose to non-warrior classes. Right now I'm not even taking any Biotic/Tech-focused characters with me in my party. I've got Wrex with lots of combat ability with a side of Biotic, and I've got Garrus also with a bunch of combat ability and a side of Tech.

As soon as someone invents 30 hour days, I'm going to get back into my Third Age: Total War campaign, pick up a new Westeros: Total War campaign and a new Empire: Total War campaign, finish my current Neverwinter Nights 2 campaign and see if I can't finish out my current career in Silent Hunter 3. Maybe 40 hour days is more like it, now that I think on it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have played all the usual suspects regarding extremely well-regarded western RPGs, barring the really old stuff like Pools of Radiance or Ultimas/Wizardry/etc. Of the 'big three', I found Fallout 1/2 to be excellent but still representative of my general complaints regarding the genre, PST to be good but not as good as people say and not my cup of tea, and I avoid mentioning my opinion on BG1/2 because speaking it apparently is held by many religions as worse than murder.

So, it's safe to say that you don't like RPGs that are actually RPGs then? The 'big 3' you listed were far more flexible in terms of choices than mass effect was. Fallout 2 and planescape especially. Mind you they didn't have its pretty shiny graphics and due to the limitations of their time were text heavy. Perhaps the mass effect formula was more to your likeing because the role playing was more restricted and in the end you were kind of were on rails anyways? I've been replaying it recently and certainly found that to be the case.

My statement that I do not enjoy the aspect of western RPGs in which one develops the character's personality by choosing from a limited list of actions was inexplicably extrapolated by two people to mean that I wish that these games would remove this element. Rather, I wish that these games would improve their implementation of that element so that the list of actions is much more inclusive; barring that, they can remain what they are and I will not enjoy that type of game as much as other people will.

By your standards until we have an open world simulator where one can opt to take a shit in the kings champagne glass, grab the queen, swing from a chandelier out the window over the moat and then discover gunpowder and revolutionise trade in the game world, and somehow have the game engine incorporate that into the storyline because you had the compulsion to do it then you will not be satisfied. Sorry if it's half assed that this cannot and never will be achieveable, outside of some nerdy cosplay real life D&D sillyness where you hit each other with foam swords (even then the egomanical DM will probably fuck it up)

Until then I guess its JRPG angst, JRPG treasure hunts, JRPG combat and most of all JRPG sweet predicatable simplicity FTW!

Contrary to the beliefs of some people, it is not necessary to be offended by the existence of a game that one does not enjoy or a person who enjoys a game that one does not also enjoy.

Contrary to the belief of some forum goers some people just do this for a bit of fun when they're bored. Come to think of it, this kind of RPG might be just your kind of thing.

(just to clarify, the thread title has absolutely positively nothing at all to do with you, I swear on my mint earthbound figurine collection and double swear on my tifa plushies genrously proportioned boobs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the game a lot, but it seems like they could have offered other paths through it where you wouldn't use as much direct violence as you have to do now, giving a purpose to non-warrior classes.

This is pretty much a universal problem with all videogame RPGs. Hell, even some of the PnP ones too. It's all hung around the combat system. The game system, the plot, the game itself, etc. Non-combat options are almost always some sort of bland after-thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My statement that I do not enjoy the aspect of western RPGs in which one develops the character's personality by choosing from a limited list of actions was inexplicably extrapolated by two people to mean that I wish that these games would remove this element.

No, we just used that and your other opinions on related things to point out that you just don't seem to like any actual role-playing in your RPG. Which isn't an insult really. Well, no more an insult then calling you a JRPG fan would be, since those 2 statements are effectively the same thing (Personally, I'd be insulted to be called a JRPG fan, but your millage may vary :P)

But Western RPGs are built on the concept of developing your own character through a limited list of choices, since Western RPGs are pretty much computerized D&D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pretty much a universal problem with all videogame RPGs. Hell, even some of the PnP ones too. It's all hung around the combat system. The game system, the plot, the game itself, etc. Non-combat options are almost always some sort of bland after-thought.

Yep, if you want to play that sort of game what you need is an adventure game, with a branching story and classes or somesuch. For some reason we don't really have them. Adventure games are so thin on the ground its unlikely ones going to pop up though.

Fahrenheit/Indigo prophecy was a decent attempt not totally focussed on combat, no real RPG elements though.

You could technically finish fallout without killing anyone, the first one at least, and get the pacifist award. The pacifist stuff worked in baldurs gate to a degree because you had your party to do the dirty in many cases. In the second iteration there were also a lot of situations you could talk your way out of, same with in planescape. In the end though you always end up in some big ass dungeon killing trogs or some crap. But its hard not to have that happen when the whole premise of these games is founded on exploring dank dark corridors etc. The bits set in cities often have many way to use dialogue to get out of trouble but when your in the bush words arn't really going to cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pretty much a universal problem with all videogame RPGs. Hell, even some of the PnP ones too. It's all hung around the combat system. The game system, the plot, the game itself, etc. Non-combat options are almost always some sort of bland after-thought.

Oh I know, it's just very apparent in Mass Effect compared to some other titles. Hell, take Deus Ex for example, it's not even a proper RPG but it still manages to include at least two major paths for your character to take through the game: a regular FPS shoot 'em all type thing or a more Thief-inspired sneak 'em up. It also offers you more than one solution to some of the puzzles in the game. Blow the door off its hinges or talk to some people to learn about the hidden basement entrance. Hack a terminal or manage to find out the password from someplace else. Persuade someone to give you information or pay them off (or hack a terminal to find out). It's not incredibly deep or anything, but it makes it feel like you have many options.

In ME, your only option is with which weapon or Biotic/Tech-ability you wish to kill somebody dead. v0v

ETA

Also, I think there's a distinct difference between Mass Effect and more dungeon-crawly type games. If I go into a dungeon I know I will have to slay some bodies at one point or another, but unless you're playing Diablo there's going to be more to do than just going into dungeons, and you will be able to talk, sneak or steal your way through situations that would otherwise require violence. There is no such option in Mass Effect for the majority of missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, the funny thing is I was also thinking of Deus Ex when you mentioned that, but in the opposite way.

Deus Ex is the perfect example of the shallow, pointless banality of the non-combat option. The "Non-Combat Path" is simply "take the obviously not-for-combat skills and then look for the always present grate/sewer/etc when you run into a situation where you have to fight". It's blatantly obvious they designed the game around the combat option and then through in a few crawlspaces and sewer streams so they could slap "Non-Combat options!!!" on the back of the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree that in mass effect we see a much more defined storyline than other RPGs. It's far from just a collection of dungeons with nothing to do but kill people though. Some are combat only, many have RPG elements within them to cut the combat short or avoid it altogether. Theres also tonnes of interaction and story driven stuff in all the major locales in which you can avoid combat. Yes it is forced on you sometimes but, well, sometimes you can't talk your way out of a situation. There weren't many non combat options on the western front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it's safe to say that you don't like RPGs that are actually RPGs then?

That's not precisely true - I do like some of them. It would be true to say that I do not like them for being RPGs. Unless you are saying that Fallout 2, which I enjoyed greatly, is not actually an RPG.

(Obviously, that's using a definition of RPG that is not commonly in use, but we both seem to agree on as appropriate, though it seems silly to me to claim it as gospel as if 'RPG' has not developed its own meaning entirely independent of any actual role-playing.)

Perhaps the mass effect formula was more to your likeing because the role playing was more restricted and in the end you were kind of were on rails anyways?
This is pretty close to what I've said about it, though maybe not here, only from the opposite perspective: I like Mass Effect's formula because it provides a more cinematic experience, and as has been discussed, cinematic-ness is directly correlated with lack of diversity of choice (rails-ness) due to technical / development time / etc. limitations. I also liked the fact that its alignment system and slightly guided character creation discouraged any attempts to play a character in ways that did not fit with the story, thus allowing the game to maintain the role-playing aspect (which I actually enjoy when it does let me pick the choice I want) in a guided fashion and in a way that minimizes the character dissonance that I hate.

This is actually quite the opposite from your shitting in the king's cup example - if a game gives me options, I want it to include any reasonable option I might choose, but the best practical way to do this isn't to design two options for each D&D alignment and five more for Malkavians, but to guide the player in such a way that few options are necessary because the others aren't reasonable. Perhaps this is too 'rails' for you? Well if so, it sounds like you won't be satisfied if you can't shit in the king's cup either, because not doing that is a 'rail'. Or we can just not exaggerate moderate preferences into ridiculous extremes.

Until then I guess its JRPG angst, JRPG treasure hunts, JRPG combat and most of all JRPG sweet predicatable simplicity FTW!

I boggle to try to understand this apparent war you perceive between these two genres, as if they are fighting to the death and only one can survive. They're almost completely unrelated except for the fact that they both derived from the early, really basic CRPGs like Ultima and that they share the horribly innacurate epithet 'RPG' (which is far less horribly inaccurate in the case of the Western category). And yes, it is completely possible to be a 'JRPG fan' and 'like role-playing in your RPGs,' just like it's possible to be a 'real-time strategy fan' and a 'turn-based strategy fan' and a '4X game fan' all at once! (But they're all strategy games; surely they must fight to the death until only one survives?!)

I realize that your JRPG hate is mostly trolling but even as trolling you should probably make it sound like you have an ounce of an idea what the fuck you're talking about. (Mini-games? What?) Also, your Tetsuya Nomura hate plan is at least five years out of date; get with the program and mock his most abominable creation yet, Shiva-bike. (If you haven't seen it yet, look it up. It will enhance your JRPG trolling by a thousandfold.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I surprisingly find myself playing through Oblivion at present. I've made multiple unsuccessful attempts to play through the game in the past but I think I might actually stick with it this time.

It started out as my go-to game when listening to podcasts. I've probably explored at least 80% of the map that way as it didn't require too much of my focus.

A few questions for those who've played (spoiled to be on the safe side):

SPOILER: Oblivion

1) I'm assuming there's a use for the Unicorn horn I picked up, right? What about the minotaur horns? They're both listed as alchemy ingredients and I'm afraid I'm accidentally going to use them up when I actually need them.

2) Other than the Fighters, Mages, and Theives guilds are their any other non-quest related factions I can join? I recall Morrowind had a secret Dark Elves Guild and assume the same must be true here... any chance they let non-Dark Elves in?

3) Is it possible to replenish the charges/uses on magical weapons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually got a slow-burn Oblivion game going right now as well with the OOO 1.33 mod, and I've purposefully stayed away from the central quest-line as the damn gates makes exploring so annoying. Hopefully it means I can finally make it through to the end this time.

As for your questions:

SPOILER: Oblivion

2) The Dark Brotherhood or whatever they're called are an assassins guild, if you murder someone and then sleep in a bed they'll contact you. I forget if there's more guilds though.

3) Soul gems loaded with souls, or those big stones you find in Ayelid ruins, can be used to recharge magical weapons. Soul gems recharge a specific weapon, and the stones top up any magical weapon in your inventory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILER: Oblivion
1) I'm pretty sure the Unicorn and its horn are one of a kind things, so don't destroy or lose the horn. You can trade it for some ugly but useful armor later on. Do what you want with the Minotaur horns you have. IIRC, they're not light and you can always find more, so if you don't have a house to stash them in just dump them.

2) There's the Dark Brotherhood, as kungtotte said. There are also a few little factions you can join. A couple militant orders and a vampire hunter one come to mind. No race specific ones, though.

3) Every mage guildhouse has someone who will recharge your weapons for a fee, but that's just too expensive to do regularly. Varla stones found in Ayleid ruins will provide a one-time recharge of everything you have that needs recharging. By far the best way is by using soul gems. They're found in random loot, for sale, and just sitting around on shelves in guildhouses. Some already filled with a soul, some empty. If filled, you can use it to recharge one weapon to some extent -- the greater the soul, the greater the charge. If empty, you'll need a Soul Trap spell or a weapon with that enchantment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a game of Oblivion going on too, but it's in an abandoned stated. In a fit of madness I decided to read all of the in-game books, but each time I give it a try I migrate to real books that I know are worthy of my attention.

Again, the boringness of the rails outweighs the so called brilliant storyline benefits, of which I am yet to see.

Play FFT and Xenogears. Those two utterly avoid this trend, which you rightfully point out:

Until then I guess its JRPG angst, JRPG treasure hunts, JRPG combat and most of all JRPG sweet predicatable simplicity FTW!

I could go on and on about how deep the two are. Some time ago I found the Perfect Works companion book to Xenogears, and that bitch is hardbound and around three hundred pages long, filled with descriptions and explanations of the world of Xenogears. The breadth of it is enormous and wonderfully sophisticated. It's not quite on a Tolkien level of development, but I would say that it at least equals Erikson (whose work I loath to the very fiber of my being, but I must acknowledge has created an expansive world).

Note: When I make this comparison, I mean that while Erikson's world is larger, Tolkien's world is more fleshed out. Xenogears' story is about as large as Erikson's, but more fleshed out (with characters who aren't walking puppets of the same personality too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently picked up Oblivion - The Elder Scrolls IV for my PS3. It was $15 at Disc Exchange, a very awsome deal.

Initially, I was very impressed. The world was very detailed and there were a lot of choices amongst races, classes, etc. The word "robust" comes to mind.

However, after playing and levelling up a few times, I've noticed something very disturbing - when I level up, the whole damn world levels with me. It really runis the point of levelling and acquiring more powerful stuff, if you ask me. Anybody else notice this? Does it bother you as much as it bothers me? I'm having a hard time summoning up the urge to play anymore because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...