Next Gen RPG based on stats or on skill ?

[Geralt_and_Ciri]

Next Gen RPG based on stats or on skill ?

Here is a couple of videos about gameplay in combat of the next gen RPG, i am really happy to see how games like Dark Soul/Demon Souls have change the whole perspective of fight with your items and stats, to fight with you own skills.

Lord of the Fallen:

Spoiler

Kingdom Come:

Spoiler

Deep Down:

Spoiler

Dragon Age Inquisition:

Spoiler

[video=youtube;98Y1IAY-TYk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98Y1IAY-TYk [/video]

Final Fantasy XV:

Spoiler

Like you see, on almost all those games you can Roll, and the combat gameplay is based on the skill and no only on stats.

So, the witcher 3 has generated, right now, more expectations than all those games, we can expected too a better system of combat than all those games or atleast at the same level, Geralt will roll like a wheel ? Geralt will have his own epic video gameplay of the combat and everyone will drool and swim on his own juice ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Gr3aves]

What? Roll like a wheel? Swim in my own juice?



By the way, your sig offends me. Stop trolling us with it.

 

[darcler]

So what was the question again?

 

[val.mitev]

The Witcher is a combination of both skill and and stats, and I think this is how games should be.

 

[volsung]

action games are reflex based (skill as you say) because they test YOU. Role playing games ask you to be somebody else, regardless of your rolling or button mashing skill. You play as a character and are bound to what that character can do, not what you can. RPG's test your intellect, planning and reasoning. Dark Souls tests your reflexes.

The Witcher sits somewhere in the middle.

 

[ReptilePZ]

The Witcher sits somewhere in the middle.

The Witcher 2 went much closer to action than the first game did. Looks like they're sticking with 2's strategy for TW3.

 

[DroolingDreamer]

I disagree. While Demon's and Dark Souls are more skill-based then most other RPGs, they also require more tactics than fast reactions, mostly thanks to input buffering.

 

[volsung]

I disagree. While Demon's and Dark Souls are more skill-based then most other RPGs, they also require more tactics than fast reactions, mostly thanks to input buffering.

You need a "tactical" approach for many action games, unless they are plain old school arcade. That doesn't mean they are not action. Just like you need perceptual level decision making (turn left, turn right, block, attack) for many action games, but this is not the same as the decision making you do on traditional role playing games.

I don't get the whole "skill" based idea. Strategy games and traditional RPG's use a different kind of skills, they're just not reflex based. The "stats" don't play for you, just like chess doesn't play itself.

The Witcher 2 went much closer to action than the first game did. Looks like they're sticking with 2's strategy for TW3.

True. Most talents in TW2 are combat related. I hope they can make TW3 into more of an RPG than 2 was, but so far CDPR has only referred to combat, and that's all people seem to care about.

 

[EliHarel]

@FoggyFishburne
Your post is based on the premise that every person is rational in his approach to gaming in such a way that he wants a stable system. More than that, it assumes that this approach to gaming is the right (?) one. Claiming that there's a preferable approach for "Fun" is strange. Some people may enjoy a much more chaotic element in their games, be them video, casino or board.

I like Risk. I particularly like those heroic battles, where a defending force of 8 units punishes an invading army of 43. The defenders may lose, and my (formerly) best-friend may have breached my control of South America, but it was a pyrrhic victory for him. In Risk, after he deploys his units and I deploy mine, it all comes down to dice rolling. No tactics, no flanking, nothing - the battle itself is just rolling a dice and hoping for the best. This way, it's possible for even a small force to defeat a big one. People like Chance. I also think that's part of what makes football (not handegg) so popular: even Liverpool from the top of the league can suddenly struggle and almost lose to Fulham from the bottom of the table. Chance is more exciting and enjoyable to some people than Stability. Trying to decide which one is "better" is... weird.

As for game designs, "Complex/Harder" doesn't necessarily result in "funner", and "simple" doesn't necessarily mean "boring". I can spend hours on Risk, and it's a very simple game. I spend those hours, because it's also terribly fun, which is my prime reason for gaming. I see no reason why the Chance Factor should be any different in a video game than in a board game. Just like in Risk, so can it be in RPG - my enjoyment comes from putting my skills to use in preparing for the "battle", but once the battle itself is engaged, I like for there to be that crazy element that leaves even the wildest scenarios possible. This can be true for strategy games as well as RPGs. Hell, even FPS - a weapon jam just as I decide to rush, maybe? Out of the blue? I'll probably go "god damn it!" and run to cover, but simultaneously think "wow, this is awesome". Maybe I completely misunderstood, but the tone of your post makes me to be a second-rate gamer for enjoying such things. I don't understand the attempt to rank different sorts of elements in gaming.

 

[Sirnaq]

If anything i would say that thankfully there is a lot of variety on the market. We still have new tactical rpgs that are focused on stats and planning like wasteland 2, project eternity or torment, and then we have arpgs focused on player's skill in combat.

@FoggyFishburne

I take you don't like xcom.

@Greaves93

I can guarantee you that they gonna pronounce ciri's name "seereeh".

 

[Mataresa]

Well personally, Risk is too random for me. But there are plenty of games, where risk management is the key. What about card or dice games? I think, you can't dismiss randomness completely.

 

[Fandango9641]

Are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[Geralt_and_Ciri]

Are the two mutually exclusive?

No, and it is very obvious, what i try to say, is that you have games like for example:
-Demon Soul, you have high stats and high end items, and you still
taking care of every hit, cliff, everything.
- A game like Lineage 2, where you click on a mob and the character start
to hit until the mod is dead, you can click for do skills, but stats are all.

 

[Sirnaq]

I like both skillbased systems of arpgs like in witcher 2 and rng oriented games like trpgs. What i hate with passion though are hybrids of the two. That's why i think fallout 3 and nev vegas is bloody abomination gameplay wise. Who though it was good idea to overwrite gun's ballistics and player's skill with rng/chance to hit? Fo3 is fps gameplay wise, it doesn't need vats and it doesn't need stat defining how much your character sucks at shooting.

 

[AserPik]

There will always be both. Skill for the real players, and stats for those children who want to be god.

 

[dragonbird]

There will always be both. Skill for the real players, and stats for those children who want to be god.

And for those of us who don't have the reaction speed of a 20-year-old.
If you have preferences, please express them in ways that don't insult other forum members.

 

[val.mitev]

There will always be both. Skill for the real players, and stats for those children who want to be god.

And here comes the balance part. I think this can be handled with difficulty settings.
On lower difficulty it should be more dependent on stats and on higher difficulty the player skills should be tested more and more.

 

[Belzebutinov]

Balancing out by difficulty is always a nice thing to do. There's absolutely nothing wrong with implementing a "story-mode" difficulty that allows players who don't want to bother with difficult combat to just enjoy the awesome storyline from the Witcher. Or maybe it's your sixth playthrough and you feel you've seen everything the combat has to offer and you just want to discover a different ending and you're happy to shorten the combat part to get to that ending faster.

Quite personally, I love the combat to be brutal because I find it to be way more immersive; but there are plenty of reasons people might have to want simpler combat that have nothing to do with their own skill. As long as the option for simple/difficult combat is there, I'm sure everyone can enjoy the game how they want to and come back a talk about it in detail here

 

[gadrael]

I get the impression that some people think that stat based combat is some kind of boring autoplay, but it isn't true. Stat based combat can be and should be challenging, but instead of mashing buttons it should more depends on your brain - how you develop your character, what weapon/skills/spells you should use, which enemy should be kills first etc. etc. If you want extra challenge you can always make some "crippled" characters with social skills only
Anyway, suggesting easy mode for people who prefer stat based combat is not good idea, such combat will just bore most of them.

 

[volsung]

There will always be both. Skill for the real players, and stats for those children who want to be god.

*sigh* I suppose our long history of games of logic like Mancala, Go, Chess, Hex and others are for primitive brutes or for children as you say.

As I said, reasoning is a skill. Some games test your speed and reaction times, others test your mental skills. If you prefer button mashing, that's up to you. It just seems to me you've never played a game where you have to think and plan before you act.

These two approaches have nothing to do with age or talent. They have more to do with what we consider worthwhile entertainment. Believe it or not, some of us enjoy thinking and like doing it during our free time.

PS: Here is a website where you can play Hex online. Exercise your mind instead of your fingers. Good luck trying to play god there.

Wikipedia entry on Hex.