Yeah, they're pretty terrible.
Weapon sounds peaked in 1999's Kingpin: Life Of Crime's shotgun and HMG sounds.
The FPS rpg, can it really work?
- Thread starter Cyratis
- Start date
Yeah, they're pretty terrible.
Weapon sounds peaked in 1999's Kingpin: Life Of Crime's shotgun and HMG sounds.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
I'm afraid to ask, but... what did the bad people do? (Points to diagram with many different choices of dialog) Did they touch here?
Moosick
cats
Well it highlights what I see as problem with mixing RPGs and First Person Games. But that is a problem that I have, others might not see it like that, which is totally alright. I respect that. But for me the view matters a lot. When I play first person shooters I really start to get my self immersed. I am really enjoying to think taht I am J.C. Denton on his way to uncover a gigantic conspiracy. Or that I am a space marine traped on mars fighting creatures - I guess I am the only beeing on this planet that was frightened by playing Doom 4. With RPGs like Baldurs Gate or Fallout 1 things are very different, and I enjoy them for exactly that reason. I am immersed by the world and want to guide the character trough it based on the choices in skills. That the character is missing or failing because his skills are to low works perfectly because it's not my skill at work here. The game is showing me abstractions and arch-types of classes etc.
Now when you mix those two? And the moment when something like in the video happens I start to become frustrated as it disconects me from my character and the way how I enjoy the game. It has always been like that for me. This is why I can only enjoy First person RPGs when they are designed as shooters first and RPGs later. Like Deus Ex.
Now when you mix those two? And the moment when something like in the video happens I start to become frustrated as it disconects me from my character and the way how I enjoy the game. It has always been like that for me. This is why I can only enjoy First person RPGs when they are designed as shooters first and RPGs later. Like Deus Ex.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
You're looking at it the wrong way. It's TOTALLY fine to point out problems with a given thing that people like. It's taking issue with them liking it that's kinda pointless, cause that's where subjectivity enters the picture. To put it in simple terms, it's alright that people like FO3, but it doesn't mean FO3 is a good game, and it's equally alright for anyone to point out ALL the problems FO3 has. It's NOT a case of "just a problem I have", because it's the GAME that has the problem. If the fans can say "I know that's stupid, but I still like it", then everybody's square. But the fact that they can't, that they HAVE to defend what can't be defended, is where the problems lie. As long as WE don't cross the same boundaries, and we point out FLAWS rather than complain about TASTES, then we're fine.
ninjacapo
First time out of the vault
i think it can but id like to see players punished more by their stats. if you have low gun skill, maybe your pistol jams up a little more frequently or you have a super slow reload or something? im hesitant to say to make it like CoD or other luck-based twitch-shooters, but some of those games have a system in place that regulates how many bullets actually do damage (like, every 3rd hit actually registers), now, some of this is due to lag in the netcode (which is bullshit) but it almost feels as if it's designed to give casuals a more even playing field. again, im SUPER hesitant to suggest this but if you made it where every so many bullets didnt do damage or "missed" at moderate range (obviously point-blank is point-blank) due to a low skill, it *kinda would* be more like the original fallout until you up your skill
has missed
has missed
has missed
has missed
etc
has missed
has missed
has missed
has missed
etc
PossibleCabbage
Vault 22 Survivor
Wasn't "you aren't good with your guns until you invest points in them" the primary criticism a lot of people had for Alpha Protocol? I think insofar as the shooter/RPG has to cater to both crowds, you're really going to annoy the audience of the former if your shooting isn't good right out of the box.
Radiosity
Writiosity
To be fair, if you're a special secret agent of some sort, I'd expect them to be good with guns by default. That's less the case in something like New Vegas where you're a blank slate courier who may or may not have bothered training in guns, instead possibly going for a pacifist speech-type approach or similar things.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
But the entire PREMISE of role playing is being able to appropriate ANY status (personified via "blank slate") and act it out however the role player sees fit, under the constraints of said role. If it's a given that you're a secret agent with some level of firearm proficiency "by default", then that's just not role playing. But, that's to be expected of a hybrid; it's NOT truly either of its combined components. It's just some degrees of each, washed into a messier whole. Making that look good is a tall order, and rarely does it ever get pulled off, nor with flying colors.
PossibleCabbage
Vault 22 Survivor
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this. I've had plenty of tabletop roleplaying campaigns where the GM started by setting boundaries on character creation so that the characters meshed with the campaign better (e.g. you are all retired veterans who served aboard ships) and you could be anyone you want, but you had to also be that. I think a certain amount of external structure actually helps people roleplay, because it gives them something to riff off of. So mandating that the characters know their way around a ship, or that Mike Thorton is capable with a variety of firearms, etc. certainly closes off some possibilities, but I don't think you have to let the PCs do literally whatever they want whenever they want in order to to qualify as a roleplaying game. It's a sliding scale of more freedom/less freedom, and at some point you leave the RPG world entirely, but there's significant leeway.
I mean, generally in tabletop you will have GMs veto certain character concepts because they won't work well with what they're planning. This is done as a favor to the players because a character that doesn't mesh with the game well is less fun to play.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
"Do whatever they want" is NOT the same thing as "accomplish whatever they want". I played a D&D campaign where one of our players had a GOAL to be an asshole, no matter what. I knew the guy, and he was a very chill person, but in this role playing universe he INSISTED on being a son of a bitch, backstabbing, thieving, crazy mother fucker. The DM decided to surreptitiously trick him into putting on a pillow case that was possessed by a benevolent deity that would overpower him and force him to conform into being a nicer person. What determined his inability to remove the possessed pillow case and regain his maniacal ways? Well it certainly WAS NOT his personal decision making, because as soon as he discovered why he was unable to be a rat bastard, he IMMEDIATELY tried to pull the possessed pillow case off, and always failed. Why? Dice, nothing more. Just because players WISH to do something doesn't mean they can. That's the entire purpose of role playing a character. You can be an average intelligent person, role playing some kind of brilliant savant so intelligent that he'd make Dr. Robotnik blush, but naturally the person's physical limitations make acting out that character physically impossible, but NOT impossible for the constraints of the game, because what the character can do is governed by probabilities, dice rolls, in-game systems that determine what they're capable of.
Just because players are allotted the freedom to do whatever they please doesn't mean they CAN do what they want. But being allowed that freedom, constrained ONLY by the character they're willfully playing, is what makes it a role playing game. Whether it's set by a DM or a campaign has some logical restrictions to what you ought to be doing doesn't interact with that hard and fast rule. Just like "freedom" is not the same thing nor should it be confused with "sandbox", there are definitive qualities of what makes a game a role playing game that's not to be confused with other kinds of games. The point is that hybrids, by their very nature, CANNOT BE role playing games, because they're half-breeds, at best.
Just because players are allotted the freedom to do whatever they please doesn't mean they CAN do what they want. But being allowed that freedom, constrained ONLY by the character they're willfully playing, is what makes it a role playing game. Whether it's set by a DM or a campaign has some logical restrictions to what you ought to be doing doesn't interact with that hard and fast rule. Just like "freedom" is not the same thing nor should it be confused with "sandbox", there are definitive qualities of what makes a game a role playing game that's not to be confused with other kinds of games. The point is that hybrids, by their very nature, CANNOT BE role playing games, because they're half-breeds, at best.