kofeiiniturpa;n8533660 said:
Whaaat?? Of course it does. You are not the character, you are playing him. He's your window to that world, and when the vision is blurred you have to deal with it until you can clarify and even enhance it. That's what the skills and progression are there for, to tell you where the role you are playing is at and what he is capable of at any given moment. Your job as a player is to play and progress according to what the role can and can not do. It's terrible design if the player is allowed and even encouraged to break the character through overt compensation of his inefficiencies; well, it's terrible for an RPG.
But there is far more to it, than % success rate. RPG's are about decision making and consequences...from background, customization, dialogue, story choices, playstyles, etc, etc.
kofeiiniturpa;n8533660 said:
The perks in the early Fallouts were more of an afterthrough. And the big thing to remember here is that they were - optional (just like the traits) - complementary features in the charcter system, and intended as "litlle cheats" to bend the rules in favor of the player, not the core of the sytem. And anyway, what point does bringing a 20-year-old game here as a "rebuttal"? It's like those arguments that Fallout had dull TB combat because you couldn't go prone and stuff, therefore this brand new game X should not be TB. And before someone asks, no that wasn't an implied suggestion.
I disagree...along with basic stats and skill increase ( and a poor karma system), they were absolutely fundamental aspect of building your character, when it comes to gameplay.
kofeiiniturpa;n8533660 said:
I can't say that give a hoot about "realistic simulation" as it is understood here -- you could understand it just the same in an RPG if the player would grasp the detachment between "ME" and "the character I play" -- because here it usually only means overt payer substitution of the character, and thus also degrading of the character systems and the roleplaying itself. It downgrades the game. This can be seen in any AAA RPG of recent years; highly inefficient "me too, look I have stats too, I'm an RPG" style "for-show-only" character systems in games that - from how they work - would've likely been better if designed without them altogether. The mainstream loves RPG's... when they don't at all play like one.
If the game is wanted to be a "realistic simulation" then it should not be called RPG, but "simulation".
You see, this is the whole "crux" of the "problem"...you see mechanics ( almost like some set in stone rpg dogma), but completely ignore the setting they take place in. This game
will ( and I'm 99.999% sure of this) play in realistic simulation of Night City. Copy pasting similar skill system like in older crpgs would not make it a "better rpg", only a more poorly designed video game.
I've stated why, a dozen times by now, it's pointless to repeat it.
And there are only three western AAA rpg developers currently compared to far more available crpgs on the market. It is more an "issue", for better or worse, of customization or basic perk system of being added to modern action games, but that does not make them rpgs. Simply a side effect of publishers increasing value/appeal of their games, by adding more "replayability" and customization options to the player.
kofeiiniturpa;n8533660 said:
Consoles and console market. It was different back then than it is now.
Eh, no. Definitely not. It is too easy and simplified approach to blame it all on "dumb new kids". Even on sites like codex, there are few people defending combat systems in those games, simply for being more tied to traditional rpg mechanics.
That Bioware and Bethesda went further in removing other aspects of roleplaying is another matter entirely, but core combat mechanics have absolutely improved.
kofeiiniturpa;n8533660 said:
But that is what you are going to get with a "modern realistic simulation with a perk tree"; there'll be lots of nitpicking but X and but Y, but at its core and at its base functionality, it will be the same as any other of its kind.
You're oversimplifying things to the bone. It will have far more complexity than most of older rpgs, while skills functioning more realistically and more fitting to it's setting.
kofeiiniturpa;n8533660 said:
Harmfully overt factor. People like that, no doubt, but if the assumption was that that's only what they like, that they can not like anything else, it'd be pretty fucked. No game has to be "for everyone", that's why they can and should differ. With the current technology and the current market... more than ever.
Do you not see the irony, of stating the game should not be designed in one way and stereotyping it as "dumb", while saying your preference is "objectively" better for the game? And there are a ton of older rpgs that are uniformly designed in the "same way". How is that any different?
This feels like re-re-repetition of the same theme, in the end our differences come down to:
Fans of older crpg's see skills mechanics and their restrictions (as they worked in those games) as vital part of roleplaying. If you have no investment in a particular skill, you have 0% chance of success...classic example, you will always miss your target even at point blank range.
Lack of close camera angle, basic control of your character and general design of the game, did not create a contradiction here between
what the character does and
what the player sees.
Modern games give us more personal, direct control of your character with worlds more complex, realistic and detailed than ever...making the whole experience more
immersive and
believable. But this also creates direct conflict with how classic rpg skills work with direct player control ( that older games lacked)...as a result their restrictions have to be toned down or presented to the player in a more intuitive way.
Good example of this done right: Gothic melee skills.
In the end it comes down to what people define as "roleplaying"...more character defined, but also more rigid and less intuitive system like in crpgs or more player skill baed like in modern ones.
But it is a
bsolutely 100% inaccurate to say this makes the latter one less complex/more "dumb" as result. ( I'm not even a big fan of Souls series, but it's weapon/stat system completely annihilates almost any crpg when it comes to sheer variety of (combat) builds)