The main disagreement lies with the notion both player skill and character ability cannot simultaneously exert a large influence on combat results, in a reasonably balanced way. Yes, it's difficult to achieve such a goal. Yes, plenty of past developers have either screwed it up or claimed it was a goal when they had zero intention of doing it, or both. Neither of these make it impossible.
They can't because they're mutually exclusive, no amount of innovative mechanics can change that. Sure you can permit one to modify the other, but a system has to be one or the other at it core, it's impossible for it to be both.
It may be true player skill exerting an influence, at least in a way where character attributes didn't have close to absolute control over combat results, isn't pure RPG combat. I don't think it's entirely fair to automatically classify it as FPS combat though.
You miss the point.
Character attributes and skills (and an RNG ) are what make an RPG an RPG. Not the setting, not the dialog/choices, not the real-time or turn-based, not levels, not skill trees, not any of a thousand other things. The influence the characters attributes and skills have on outcomes. I could be Stephen Hawkings (R.I.P.) and be the worlds deadliest sniper or fastest quick-draw in an RPG both of which are impossible for me in an FPS.
They can't because they're mutually exclusive, no amount of innovative mechanics can change that. Sure you can permit one to modify the other, but a system has to be one or the other at it core, it's impossible for it to be both.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You can have the player's skill and the character's ability combined into a single gameplay. I will say more: it has already been done, so we know it's possible.
You miss the point.
Character attributes and skills (and an RNG ) are what make an RPG an RPG. Not the setting, not the dialog/choices, not the real-time or turn-based, not levels, not skill trees, not any of a thousand other things.
Choices are very important part of an RPG. In fact, I would argue that a real RPG is all about making choices. Because the entire system (which consists of attributes and skills, and - in PnP - RNG) is there literally so the GM can tell you what the outcomes of these choices are.
They can't because they're mutually exclusive, no amount of innovative mechanics can change that. Sure you can permit one to modify the other, but a system has to be one or the other at it core, it's impossible for it to be both.
So you say. Again, I'd disagree. Even in a FPS the act of aiming a weapon and pressing the shoot button isn't a combat result. It's a player action. It's equivalent to selecting a character, picking an ability and choosing a target to direct the ability toward. The only difference between FPS and RPG here, in the context of the combat system, is whether the hit or miss is governed by the game rules or the player. Is it "in character" if the hit or miss is based on the player? Nope. It doesn't mean none of the combat is based on the character attributes, or "in character", either.
Let me ask you this... Is it in character for a master swordsman to miss a sword strike on a feeble, clumsy peasant with a pitchfork? I'd argue the answer is a definitive no. He's a master swordsman because he doesn't swing his sword around like an idiot. Every single movement he makes from head to toe to the tip of the sword is calculated, deliberate and done with absolute precision. Can it happen in a RPG, using RPG rules with a a dice roll combat system? Yep. Substitute the word "player" with a dice roll.
What makes it RPG is everything is confined within the characters. Can the character do it? If yes the player can do it. Otherwise it's off limits. I fully understand the point. I'm saying it's an acceptable concession to put aiming the weapon and pressing shoot in the hands of the player if the overall combat experience is strongly influenced by the character attributes. Just as it's an acceptable concession to have the master swordsman miss the feeble, clumsy peasant with a pitchfork because the game decided it was going to happen.
Does this first concession make the combat pure RPG? Nope. It does not. It's not even up for debate. It does not make it pure FPS either. A pure FPS doesn't care about the character. The character might as well be a digital avatar of the player. There are plenty of games where results, regardless of where they happen, are partially determined by both character attributes and player attributes. The problem isn't splitting up the result determination here. The problem is doing what Kofe said and making it so those character attributes are so insignificant to the result they may as well not even exist.
The main disagreement lies with the notion both player skill and character ability cannot simultaneously exert a large influence on combat results, in a reasonably balanced way. Yes, it's difficult to achieve such a goal. Yes, plenty of past developers have either screwed it up or claimed it was a goal when they had zero intention of doing it, or both. Neither of these make it impossible.
It may be true player skill exerting an influence, at least in a way where character attributes didn't have close to absolute control over combat results, isn't pure RPG combat. I don't think it's entirely fair to automatically classify it as FPS combat though. If the character attributes are of minor influence, as you described in your last sentence above, then it's completely understandable to be upset. That would indicate they consistently claimed, "RPG, RPG, RPG", when in reality is was complete horseshit the entire time .
Well, based on stats, in C2020 skill and stats influences are about twice as much as the dice (the dice being remplaced by the player in a A-RPG), and that's about what I wish too see at least.
I kinda have to. I don't know how to explain this to you. You're not a daft person, but there is some kind of a barrier that prevents me from getting through. Maybe it's the way I use this language, maybe it's the way I form my responses, maybe both... I don't know.
But, eh... Ok. Randomness itself, when looked at in isolation, is not fair. Nor is it unfair. It just is what it is and does what it does at any given time regardless of who uses it. That's just how it works. For better or worse.
But when you limit the randomness within a range, separate it into living success and fail categories and start to look at the probabilities for each, the picture changes a bit. The larger the category of success gets, the less the randomness matters. because with a skill 9/10, rolling 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 randomly doesn't matter because every random number there is a success, 1...9 is literally one and the same, the only one that matters is the 10 that fails. And the other way around, with a skill of 1/10, the only number than matters is the 1 because all else (2-10) is a failure. In the former example, you are basically lucky if you fail, while in the latter, you are lucky to succeed. And the same applies to all the different ranges.... 3/10, 6/10, 7/10... the ranges change and the probabilities change (randomness does not) and everyone within the same ranges gets equal probabilities; equal chances.
The probability of success is the fairness of it, not the randomness behind the number you get with the roll. It is fair because luck and probability are the same for everyone (within the same range of success/failure) regardless of who they are, good or bad luck. It's not a coin toss where you always have about 50/50 chance (I'm not counting the coing staying upright on its edge here) and the results are very likely wild. Don't look at averages, that distorts the picture.
To recap... Bad or good rolls aren't fair or unfair, because they are random. But the probability (and luck) is because it doesn't look at the players personal input (which would constitute for an outside force affecting the outcome).
Post automatically merged:
Yeah. It doesn't compute to call a game an RPG if it doesn't work like one.
Stats existing doesn't make a game an RPG, it's how the stats work to form the outcomes of the attempts at anything governed by the stats. And if the stats are but a minuscule barrier people can pretty much ignore and still play the game well, they are not working as they should as the role of the role is diminished.
Post automatically merged:
There is. But for some reason it is rarely if ever utilized to the degree where either side would not suffer disproportionally (and usually it's the RPG side that takes the biggest hit).
Post automatically merged:
Like Bethesda.
Post automatically merged:
People do. It’s just not the best or most creative of solutions the way people usually think of it.
Holy crap. No way Pete Hines said that. Seriously?
I just lost a lot of respect for the guy.
Sorry. Off topic.
Anyway.
Something I have strongly disagreed with Kofe and Su about in the past is what makes an RPG an RPG, versus an FPS.
I do not think, and never have thought, that one element of a game being FPS (especially if it works as I've suggested, where character skills impact handling and accuracy to a degree) makes the entire game not an RPG. It's always been a ridiculous notion to me. I can see where they are coming from, but it's too hyper literal for me.
If I put a piece of bread in my soup, it's not a sandwich, it's still soup. If I put sugar on top of my cat's droppings, it's not chocolate, it's still cat crap.
While I would agree that what we've seen so far of 2077, that isn't combat related (granted that was most of the demo), is not as RPG as I'd like, I'm willing to "wait and see" in that regard. If 85% of the game is RPG, and 15% is a hybrid RPG/FPS combat (heck, even 80/20) system, I'm not going to call it an FPS and I think it's disingenuous to do so.
There is a STARK difference between Darksiders and the Witcher 3. And Cyberpunk 2077 and Doom. They are not the same games, they do not play the same way.
Cyberpunk 2077's gunplay, as it stands, is DEFINITELY FPS. We can argue about it till we're blue in the face, but absolutely nothing about it has the classical (or even modern) hallmarks of RPG gameplay. You aim, you shoot. The bullets go where you aimed. The only thing that is even remotely RPG (and even then, only in the sense of Borderlands and The Division) is damage numbers.
They can't because they're mutually exclusive, no amount of innovative mechanics can change that. Sure you can permit one to modify the other, but a system has to be one or the other at it core, it's impossible for it to be both.
C'mon, people. A little reason here. @kofeiiniturpa you, too. That took me two minutes to check a fairly obviously preposterous statement. And Hines uses actual grammar and capitalization, too.
And no, it's not just "What Bethesda Thinks Made Clear". That's prejudice speaking instead of reason.
This does highlight a lot of the hyperbole and silliness around gaming. "If it's not what I want, it's garbage!" Or "If it's not what I want, I'm not interested in any way - or in changing, either!"
CP2077 gunplay may or may not be what I want, but I think it'll still be fun. Because I can enjoy lots of different things in gaming.
Or you could have a calculation take place to determine if a hit or miss occurs when the crosshair is over a target and the shoot button is pressed. It'd be better, albeit more complex, to make the act of aiming more difficult based upon character skill. There are a number of options. All with various pros and cons. Of course, even those may get called FPS because the player has to do something beyond picking a target.
The reason I see no point to view a combat system as unacceptable if it's not strictly character driven is even some of the best RPG's give control to the player in a way where they can take actions outside the scope of the character. I can play a knight in shining armor Nameless One for 90% of PS:T and arbitrarily decide to pick a "bad" option. Based on those choices for 90% of the game my character wouldn't do that. Yet, I have the freedom to do it. If we say a combat system isn't acceptable in an RPG if the player has any ability to go off the reservation, so to speak, it should apply to every other system of the game.
If I did what I just described with the PS:T comment in PNP I would likely get slapped by the DM for it. I would deserve it too.
Or you could have a calculation take place to determine if a hit or miss occurs when the crosshair is over a target and the shoot button is pressed. It'd be better, albeit more complex, to make the act of aiming more difficult based upon character skill.
I disagree: in your version the player still have to be able to put his crossair on the target, while with an auto aim circle (with an high enough skill) the player would barely have to aim.
C'mon, people. A little reason here. @kofeiiniturpa you, too. That took me two minutes to check a fairly obviously preposterous statement. And Hines uses actual grammar and capitalization, too.
And no, it's not just "What Bethesda Thinks Made Clear". That's prejudice speaking instead of reason.
This does highlight a lot of the hyperbole and silliness around gaming. "If it's not what I want, it's garbage!" Or "If it's not what I want, I'm not interested in any way - or in changing, either!"
CP2077 gunplay may or may not be what I want, but I think it'll still be fun. Because I can enjoy lots of different things in gaming.
Thanks for digging that up. I was pretty damn skeptical because it seemed out of character for him, I don't think I've ever seen him talk to his audience that way, no matter what the circumstances are. Even if you think your audience is full of imbeciles, you've gotta put on the illusion of caring.
Anyway, I don't think I said Cyberpunk has to be any particular way. All's I'm sayin' is that the combat isn't RPG combat, but that also doesn't stop the rest of the game from being an RPG and maybe they'll add more RPG elements into it (the combat) at a later date. I dunno. Or, heck, maybe they'll add less and make it more FPS. It's really tough to say. Either way I'm going to play the game because it's not as much of a dealbreaker for me as it is Kofe.
As to the hyperbole, it's also important to look at it from both sides. Yes, the way people present themselves is bad. Insults and condescension are generally a poor way to discuss things. However, if we can put the emotion aside, we see the underlying "crux" of their worries: As a long-time fan of, say, the Elder Scrolls, it can be hard to see the games get (in your point of view) objectively simpler. Less (or no) skills, fewer "RPG" elements, etc. It's not a matter of "well just deal with it because the game's still good), because maybe the reason people bought those games is because they were the way they were. *shrug* Players owe creators nothing. If the game is no longer to their taste, they can try to give their feedback to get it changed, and if that doesn't work, well, they can take their business elsewhere.
What's so hard to understand?
Either the player aims and fires - FPS, or the character does - RPG.
Mutually exclusive.
At it's core a game is either an FPS or an RPG.
So you say. Again, I'd disagree. Even in a FPS the act of aiming a weapon and pressing the shoot button isn't a combat result. It's a player action. It's equivalent to selecting a character, picking an ability and choosing a target to direct the ability toward.
Equivalent, yes, the same, definitely not.
And that's the point. A shooter cannot be an RPG because it violates the core tenant of what make an RPG an RPG, character agency.
An RPG can have shooter elements, though. But those would be an exception to the role-playing aspect.
Basically, if it's you and not your character, it's note reaaaaally role-playing. Because I mean, what role are you playing? Yourself as a video game player?
Concessions must be made in many ways, though. After all, you get to use all your intelligence in the typical RPG, don't you? You don't have to play a stupid person, forced by your stats to make dumb choices during the game.
As a GM we could enforce that, but in a CRPG, no one would enjoy that. Well, few people. Ah, Fallout.
So the CRPG shooting mechanics don't have to override character agency - but the more they do, the less role-play it is.
An RPG can have shooter elements, though. But those would be an exception to the role-playing aspect.
Basically, if it's you and not your character, it's note reaaaaally role-playing. Because I mean, what role are you playing? Yourself as a video game player?
Concessions must be made in many ways, though. After all, you get to use all your intelligence in the typical RPG, don't you? You don't have to play a stupid person, forced by your stats to make dumb choices during the game.
As a GM we could enforce that, but in a CRPG, no one would enjoy that. Well, few people. Ah, Fallout.
So the CRPG shooting mechanics don't have to override character agency - but the more they do, the less role-play it is.
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, Fallout: New Vegas is touted (Even around here) as one of the best "modern" RPGs out there. It had shooter combat, but with a nice bit of stat influence. Fallout 4 is stretching it a tad due to the removal of a lot of core RPG elements, but it's a similar deal there - a game should be judged on the sum of its parts when deciding what label to apply to it.
Man. I want Obsidian to make another Fallout game.
I can play a knight in shining armor Nameless One for 90% of PS:T and arbitrarily decide to pick a "bad" option. Based on those choices for 90% of the game my character wouldn't do that. Yet, I have the freedom to do it.
Isn't that called "character development"? I always disliked the fact that cRPGs were only penalizing you for straying out of the "one and true path" as a paladin. As a result I never really played as any of them (although I used the archetype if my companion was one).
What's so hard to understand? Either the player aims and fires - FPS, or the character does - RPG. Mutually exclusive. At it's core a game is either an FPS or an RPG.
It's not that it's hard to understand as much as it's not a true statement.
In order for something to be mutually exclusive is has to be either one or the other, but there are ways of mixing up the player's input with the character's skill. I can agree that player's capability to aim should be sufficiently gated behind skills (both to make skills worthwhile to pick and to make sure that you can't compensate the lack of the character's skill with the player's skill).
Equivalent, yes, the same, definitely not. And that's the point. A shooter cannot be an RPG because it violates the core tenant of what make an RPG an RPG, character agency.
What's so hard to understand?
Either the player aims and fires - FPS, or the character does - RPG.
Mutually exclusive.
At it's core a game is either an FPS or an RPG.
Stop pushing your personal opinion as the truth. I never tire of reminding about Action RPG genre exist, you may not like it or disagree, but ARPGs exists since 80s and accepted as sub genre of RPG worldwide.
P.S what do think about JRPG?
P.P.S I'm just saying but FPS genre has a much more variety than RPGs nowadays, from DOOM to ARMA, from PUBG to Borderlands. There is so much difference within genre. I can see some irony here. Perhaps RPG genre is too blurry with its subgenres and games with RPG elements. But what we see now, with Pillars, Divinity, Planescape, Pathfinder may be returning of classic PRG as steady genre. Even if no big publishers involved into it. For now.
What's so hard to understand?
Either the player aims and fires - FPS, or the character does - RPG.
Mutually exclusive.
At it's core a game is either an FPS or an RPG.
Okay, let's go with this then. Let's assume the minute the player is in control of the crosshair it's an action combat system. Is this unacceptable? Is it acceptable if the abilities of the character still factor heavily into how "good" the character is at handling scenarios where they need to shoot something? Is it acceptable if other areas of the game behave like an RPG would, and rely upon character agency? My guess is your answers are no across the board. My answers would be maybe, yes and yes.
Going further, what would it look like if the player did not have control over the aim? How is the combat going to behave?
As long as it is not pure FPS combat, yes.
If there is no stats/skills to influence the results of such actions, then it becomes an action-adventure game.
Actually stats and skills influences are the only thing that define the line between A-RPG and action-adventure games, because everything else can be found in both genres (even if at different rates).
) are what make an RPG an RPG. Not the setting, not the dialog/choices, not the real-time or turn-based, not levels, not skill trees, not any of a thousand other things. The influence the characters attributes and skills have on outcomes. I could be Stephen Hawkings (R.I.P.) and be the worlds deadliest sniper or fastest quick-draw in an RPG both of which are impossible for me in an FPS.
