Looting

When GTA added in statistic based gameplay, it was said to have added RPG elements. That is the case with every single game that adds statistic based gameplay.

If you're talking about the content of pen-and-paper roleplaying, or LARP, then it is a different story. But within the context of CRPGs, RPG means stat based gameplay. Again, that is why Half Life isn't an RPG despite playing a role, but Diablo is an RPG without really playing a role. If you disagree, simply look to the classification of games from every single publisher on the planet. Super Mario Brothers is not an RPG just because you play the role of Mario. But Super Mario RPG was an RPG because it added statistic based gameplay.

Auditing taxation has existed for the entirety of written history. Heck, even the story of Jesus in the Bible mentions how Joseph and Mary had to travel to be counted in a census and audited for taxes. That is why they were on the road at 9 months pregnant. But I think you miss the point. Even if it were realistic, it wouldn't be fun. That is why it shouldn't be included.

Dragons and magic conversely are not realistic. Nor is it realistic to get shot with an arrow to the face and keep adventuring through the dungeon. But these elements can make a game fun.

 

Answer: you don't generate loot. What the enemy has, he has on his paperdoll. If you damage his armor in combat, he's wearing damaged armor during combat.

Targeted strikes would be very difficult in a real-time game, I'm not planning to suggest it. However, it could be a result of certain combat actions. I'm not aware of the game latency issues, and if that's at play, I'd understand. But there's not much to go on to comment.

 

Yea, I know taxation existed, that's not exactly what I meant.

There are games that include taxation, and they aren't boring. The Patrician series. You start a merchant empire in the Hanseatic League, and have to deal with local governments and guilds. There are games that include using the toilet and they aren't boring. The Sims. The question isn't whether these things are too boring for a game, the question is does it make sense to put it in this particular game, and if so, how?

So what if you had a game exactly like Ultima but it didn't use statistics, but there was still fighting, crafting, and a story, and you had to choose what to do and what skills to learn? Would it be less of an RPG than Diablo?

 

Skill points would still be stat-based gameplay to an extent, but yes, then it would be less of an RPG than Diablo.

King's Quest and Zelda are fantasy adventure games with fighting and story, but aren't RPGs because they don't have stat based gameplay (though Zelda 2 had some RPG elements).

 

I disagree with @Redfish about a few things in this thread, but in this specific point I have to agree with him, at least partially. While I acknowledge that RPG in computer games and video games is usually employed to indicate stats based character development, I find that a quite improper use of the acronym. Not only is stat based play not the central aspect of RPGs, there are a few very good RPGs that don't use stat based gameplay.

Life as a whole? No.

Specific aspects? Sure. Waiting as a whole (for public transportation, waiting in line, being put on hold on a phone call, etc), the daily commute, certain aspects of my job, taxes, dealing with certain real life persons, etc. Attempting to bring realism to certain aspects of the game can bring into the game the downsides that the specific activity has in real life, which is usually a very bad idea.

There are exceptions, of course; realism can be a good thing when it brings engagement to the game, but that is realism with a clear goal, not realism for the sake of realism.

 

But King's Quest is linear and doesn't give the player many choices to role-play, and I've seen Zelda referred to as an RPG, but you don't have too many choices in that either.

What I'm suggesting is something different. What about a game with a full world with many choices and consequences to those choices, but which uses a method other than statistics for determining battle outcomes and crafting successes? Lets say the way it plays out its like a table. A second level fencer always beats someone with a first level parrying skill. No dice are rolled.

I'm not really concerned with industry categories; companies need some way to market their games, and some games fall in between categories. But I think there is a spirit to role-playing, and it comes from pen-and-paper games.

 

Okay, that brings up an important point I'm trying to address. The way games solve these things is abstraction. Time in the game passes faster than time in real life, and sometimes you have cut scenes. Some things are automated, so instead of doing five steps, you do one. Some things are just assumed to happen, so the game doesn't bother you with them.

But I don't see abstraction as going against the spirit of realism, since you can't make a game without abstracting. When I'm talking about realism, I'm talking about depth of choices and consequences. Some of these choices can be automated and done in one step instead of five when it makes sense to do that -- while other times it might not work better -- some choices are not even worth putting in -- like the choice to hit yourself in the head -- and time is shortened, but the integrity of the game world is the same.

But you're still trying to create a real feeling world.

 

RPGs can be linear. Pretty much every JRPG is linear. Nintendo is the ultimate authority on whether or not Zelda is an RPG or Adventure title, and they classify it as an Adventure game, precisely because it is not an RPG.

Choice and consequence are features you may enjoy in certain western RPGs, but it is not the defining characteristic of what makes an RPG. Again, Diablo is a linear game with little story, no real choice and no consequences from choices. And yet it is an RPG.

I think you're confusing the traits you enjoy in a handful of games with how games are categorized by the industry.

I can opt to call Pluto a planet, but if all of academia and the scientific community disagrees with me, and they have the official say, then my viewpoint doesn't define the term.

 

Well, I understand that actually making a first class Katana takes months and months. Just polishing the blade requires weeks of painstaking effort. Any of you crafters out there want this degree of realism in your game?

 

That doesn't really answer my question. If someone made the hypothetical game I described, would it not be a role-playing game?

I don't agree with that scientists determine what words mean, either. Luckily, they left it open. Pluto is characterized as both a planet and not a planet -- dwarf planet. And Diablo is often characterized as both an RPG and not an RPG -- an Action-RPG.

 

You mean with time passing exactly at the same rate it does in real life and the game requiring to you to pay attention to every detail of your characters actions? No, that wouldn't even make sense. You're not the swordsmith, your character is. But I wouldn't mind crafting not being insta-crafting, and periodic attention to honing your weapon giving it better durability and strength. That would be cool.

It depends on what you're arguing realism means.

 

What was the topic again?

A reminder. *cues up her best southern drawl* If you find yourself hitting quote every time you post... you might be a bickerer.

*kicks thread back on topic*

 

But even if only your character is a swordsmith, is it not realistic to have your character take 3 weeks of game time if not real time to polish that blade? Or would you agree with Silent Strider that that would be "boring and frustrating", and that in this case, "implementing realism for the sake of realism and you risk introducing into the game those boring and frustrating aspects of real life, often without making the game any more engaging."

I think this is an example of exactly what he was talking about.

 

Depends how much you want the blade polished and how much you want it to sell for. But we should return to the topic.

 

My opinion about a system where NPCs drop whatever they are using is that it can't work in a game where there is an expectation to kill enemies by the dozen. It creates too many drops, making an incentive to play in a similar way to what many players did in Baldur's Gate, or in Elder Scroll games: collect everything dropped and make multiple trips to the merchants in order to sell it. That is the kind of behavior expected of scavengers, not heroes, and tend to be boring to boot.

Worse, doing that would likely be the fastest way to make gold from adventuring, unless the price of such obtained gear was kept artificially (and unrealistically) low. This would be a large incentive for players to engage in that behavior even if they don't find it fun.

It could work in a game where the number of combats, and kills, each player took part in was kept to low, "realistic" levels, but I don't think that this is the intent in SotA.

So, while traditional loot tables, and preventing players from getting everything the killed NPC appears to be carrying, might not be realistic, those might fit better into the game.

 

I'd have to agree, Silent Strider. It has to be remembered that as much as we want realism, the reality is that thousands, perhaps millions of players are gonna be running around looking to advance, to profit, to compete, and they will follow the paths of least resistance and fastest profit. If there are enough mobs for all of us to kill, and they drop every item that they reasonably could when they die, players will work out ways of mass mob farming, fastest loot returns, and the farming wars will commence.

 

Should we have an expectation to kill enemies by the dozen? Personally, that's something I've been arguing against.

 

Do you mean 'solo kill enemies by the dozen simultaneously'? Unless you are talking about an infestation of rats, probably not, but if you take 5 or 6 friends into a dungeon and find less than a dozen mobs all told, I think that would make for a pretty boring game. If it's a big dungeon or a large area in the wilderness, even if you are running solo I would expect to be able to encounter dozens of mobs, but preferably not all at once.

 

Little has been revealed, but in almost every MMO I've played it's expected that anyone attempting combat will kill one or two dozen enemies per hour (a dozen enemies per hour means 5 minutes between kills, which for most modern MMOs is actually a long time). Now imagine if all of them are humanoids with full gear...

In group play it's often the same, as far as enemies per player go, in most MMOs; NPCs in content meant for groups usually come in waves.

It's early to tell if that will be the case in SotA, but if that is the case, making NPCs drop "full loot" doesn't look like a good idea for me.

(BTW, just to avoid misunderstandings, I'm only talking about PvE here; PvP is a completely different beast.)

 

Gravity
I think it would be more fun with less gravity.