It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Compulsive min-maxing in RPG games(191 posts)(191 posts)
(191 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
FlintlockJazz: In which case that is too broad a category. Some people would definte Mass Effect as a shooter with light RPG elements, especially the sequel, and it having choices shouldn't make any difference since Diablo doesn't have any choice and yet it still classifies as an arpg too right? And being real-time isn't a requirement either, since you can have turn-based arpgs too.

To be clear I'm not arguing that they are not RPGs, just that the RPG definition needs dividing up to be clear what type of game a particular, well, game is. As I said, you know exactly what you're gonna get with an FPS, with terms like 'story-based' or 'squad-based' being added when required to refer to specific extra features. This is what the RPG genre needs, so that people know what kind of experience they are looking at.
I vote for less categories, not more....all more categories seem to do is split gamers up in to squabbling little camps.
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
Landeril: I can handle Real Time Combat(I play Baldurs Gate TotSC often these days and have beaten Star Ocean 3) I just dislike the gambit system. Rather be able to tell them what to do by pausing it, instead of it being all moving. I've lost characters because I couldn't put a spell out because they hit them while I was finding the stupid White Mage. v.v

Plus. The AI gets a little stupid at times.
avatar
GameRager: I handled it just fine...your skills must be lacking. :P
Not my skills. SO is harder then FF12. Just a stupid system for that game o.O I got FF10's Board system better. It was much more thought out.
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
GameRager: I handled it just fine...your skills must be lacking. :P
avatar
Landeril: Not my skills. SO is harder then FF12. Just a stupid system for that game o.O I got FF10's Board system better. It was much more thought out.
Not stupid, just different....I found it ultra easy actually.
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
GameRager: 1.No, I can't predict what it should be like...but then that's what roleplaying is all about...defining your own role for your chosen character. And as for the rest, well we'll just have to agree to disagree because imo you're very wrong.

2. And i've proven it has some roleplaying elements & the basis to form your own aspects for others and yet you act like it's nor an RPG because you think it isn't.

3. You TALK like it's fact and not opinion sometimes, is what I mean.
1. Imho roleplaying is just as much, if not more, about expressing your role than about creating it, and that's where Diablo goes wrong to me.

It doesn't give the player any means of expressing the role they may have created. At that point your roleplay is all a fantasy in your head, and it doesn't actually have anything to do with the game.

2. you haven't proven anything.

According to your definition of "roleplaying elements", yes Diablo does have some.

However, in case you haven't noticed, the whole problem is that our definitions of "roleplaying elements" are very different.
And according to my definition, Diablo doesn't have any.

3. and how am I supposed to talk to convey the idea that what I say is my opinion? Am I supposed to add a disclaimer every sentence or something?

Frankly I though it was a given, understood by any sensible person, than anything people say (whether themselves or anybody else) is their opinion. Sometimes it also happens to be a truth, like when I write "the Earth orbits the Sun", but even then it's still my opinion.
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
mystral: 1. Imho roleplaying is just as much, if not more, about expressing your role than about creating it, and that's where Diablo goes wrong to me.

It doesn't give the player any means of expressing the role they may have created. At that point your roleplay is all a fantasy in your head, and it doesn't actually have anything to do with the game.

2. you haven't proven anything.

According to your definition of "roleplaying elements", yes Diablo does have some.

However, in case you haven't noticed, the whole problem is that our definitions of "roleplaying elements" are very different.
And according to my definition, Diablo doesn't have any.

3. and how am I supposed to talk to convey the idea that what I say is my opinion? Am I supposed to add a disclaimer every sentence or something?

Frankly I though it was a given, understood by any sensible person, than anything people say (whether themselves or anybody else) is their opinion. Sometimes it also happens to be a truth, like when I write "the Earth orbits the Sun", but even then it's still my opinion.
1. Just like in PnP it's mostly just fantasy in your head?

2. Actually some of those are standard RPG elements(at least in PC games)...not just my definition of them,

3. You can still come off as touting opinions as factr by the way you speak, and some will pick up on this.
Posted May 30, 2011
I personally hate min/maxing and dislike games that force me to do it. I play RPGs for the story, characters, immersion and the option to define my role. Traditionally CRPGs came from PnP DnD (Gygax) and most often you used a 20 sided dice to decide say the strength of your warrior and most DMs would only allow you 1 roll so if you got a str. of 11 then that would be something you had to work into your role as a warrior (maybe he was sick as a child and couldn't work out as much). In other words your char had to make sense from an immersion perspective and he should be able to fit in with the world and a good DM would make sure that the module/adventure was not too hard for a warrior with a str. of 11.
In CRPGs there is no such limitation and you could make a warrior with maxed out str. and then 1 in int, dex, wis and char. But how would you make a "story" about your char with those stats? You can't - and so when you min/max you play the system and NOT the story, characters, immersion etc. Some RPGs like Temple of Elemental Evil and Drakensang are so hard that you are forced to play this way (and even the Infinity Engine games can be brutally hard). In other words you can't survive unless you destroy your own immersion/enjoyment of the game and that's bad I think.
Now I'm not saying that you can't try to make you guy effective by having high str/con as a fighter and then lower int, dex etc. but there is a HUGE difference between this and then dump stats of 1.
For me a true RPG must give you the chance to make meaningful decisions for your char by creating immersion in a universe with its own internal logic ie. your char must be "believable" within said universe. That is why I hate min/maxing because the internal logic is dead and hence there can be no immersion.
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
Landeril: Not my skills. SO is harder then FF12. Just a stupid system for that game o.O I got FF10's Board system better. It was much more thought out.
avatar
GameRager: Not stupid, just different....I found it ultra easy actually.
not my kinda system lol.

Though FF2 has been pissing me off lately with its stat building system
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
Delixe: I think KOTOR and JE are ARPG's. Just as much as The Witcher and Mass Effect. I think people don't like to include them as ARPG's simply because it makes ARPG's look good. Usually when you are talking to RPG fans they deride ARPG's as shallow and you can't really say that about KOTOR or JE. JE was extremely action heavy.
Jade Empire is usually recognized as an aRPG since it's very action-heavy in terms of combat.
On the other hand, I fail to see how KotOR is one considering that it shares the same real-time with pause tactical combat as Baldur's Gate. The only differences is the camera angle, the fact that you have half as many party members, less variety of tactics and the combat is much easier. That's not enough to put the game in a different genre imo.
Post edited May 30, 2011 by mystral
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
FlintlockJazz: To be clear I'm not arguing that they are not RPGs, just that the RPG definition needs dividing up to be clear what type of game a particular, well, game is. As I said, you know exactly what you're gonna get with an FPS, with terms like 'story-based' or 'squad-based' being added when required to refer to specific extra features. This is what the RPG genre needs, so that people know what kind of experience they are looking at.
Why does everything have to be pidgeon holed into some sub-category though? An RPG is an RPG. Where does Alpha Protocol get filed? ARPG? ShooterRPG? EspionageRPG? It think the RPG genre is the hardest category of games to be pidgeon holed for that very reason. There are so many possible ways to make an RPG that it would be a bad thing for customers to know exactly what they are getting. Up until the launch of Street Fighter IV the fighting game genre was all but dead because they had all become carbon copies of one another. Yes there is a difference in the way Tekken, Soul Calibur, Virtua Fighter and Dead or Alive play but fundamentally it was always a fighting tournament with copypasta characters and movesets.

I think the RPG is richer by the fact it can count games like Mass Effect, Diablo, Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, Alpha Protocol, Planescape: Torment, Drakensang, The Witcher and yes even Borderlands under the same umbrella. The only thing a person should know when buying an RPG is you are going to play a role in a long a hopefully great story.

I guess that's what makes an RPG an RPG at the end of the day, a great story well told.
Post edited May 30, 2011 by Delixe
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
Mr.Spatula: Min/maxing makes sense when you think about it.

You're (typically) either some great hero, or an exception individual who's going to become a hero by saving the world.

So of course there's a reason for that. Your average commoner with bog standard stats is not a hero, and if he tried to save the world he would get eaten by a goblin. The reason you can do it is because you're stronger, or smarter, or quicker then everyone else.

To keep a balance (since this is a game, after all), you also have to be negative in some other area. it makes absolute sense that you would pick a weakness that does not hurt your primary role (since again, you're a hero not a commoner, and should be exceptional at what you do).
avatar
LordCinnamon: And it's the combination of your two points where they stop making sense.. The first part of your explanation makes sense from a roleplaying perspective. Heroes tend to be above average (though personally I find heroes who just happen to make the right decisions at the right times a lot more interesting). The second part makes sense from the game perspective; the min-max effect is to be expected when merging roleplaying with a game system. But it does in no way make sense roleplaying-wise!

That's why I prefer systemless roleplaying, where everyone just thinks up a character that they like without being bound and pushed by the system.

There is a conflict between the game part and the roleplaying part, and the result is often going to make less sense for one part than the other. That's fine. In a way I find that RPG and roleplaying game are really two different words with different meanings by now, where RPG indicates games with more focus on the game aspect, and roleplaying game those with a more developed roleplaying aspect.

I tend to bring a bit of roleplaying even into RPGs (as in, I resist min-maxing), but in the end RPGs often have optimal decisions that make no sense roleplaying wise (which is fine). I just prefer those that allow some suboptimal decisions without *extremely* penalizing me. One of the reasons why I prefer single player RPGs, I suppose.

/unstructured rant
The problem is not min/maxing, but game systems who don't punish you for having 1 CHA, (or int, or whatever) or even seem to have it built as a purpose dump stat that offers little to no advantage. If you could get by in the world perfectly well and without any disadvantage while being ugly as sin, never washing, and cursing out every single person you meet all the time about everything (1 cha) would it make any sense for your hypothetical fighter (training to be the best there ever was) to learn manners, wash, groom himself, and not be purposely rude to everyone? No, I say having 1 cha in a game system like that *is* roleplaying.
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
GameRager: Not stupid, just different....I found it ultra easy actually.
avatar
Landeril: not my kinda system lol.

Though FF2 has been pissing me off lately with its stat building system
I also liked(offtopic but btw) the bestiary and hunter's guild system, and the whole storyline, even if used to death before. I dunno....it just seemed awesome to me. Plus some of the enemies are kinda cute to look at.
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
jepsen1977: I personally hate min/maxing and dislike games that force me to do it. I play RPGs for the story, characters, immersion and the option to define my role. Traditionally CRPGs came from PnP DnD (Gygax) and most often you used a 20 sided dice to decide say the strength of your warrior and most DMs would only allow you 1 roll so if you got a str. of 11 then that would be something you had to work into your role as a warrior (maybe he was sick as a child and couldn't work out as much). In other words your char had to make sense from an immersion perspective and he should be able to fit in with the world and a good DM would make sure that the module/adventure was not too hard for a warrior with a str. of 11.
In CRPGs there is no such limitation and you could make a warrior with maxed out str. and then 1 in int, dex, wis and char. But how would you make a "story" about your char with those stats? You can't - and so when you min/max you play the system and NOT the story, characters, immersion etc. Some RPGs like Temple of Elemental Evil and Drakensang are so hard that you are forced to play this way (and even the Infinity Engine games can be brutally hard). In other words you can't survive unless you destroy your own immersion/enjoyment of the game and that's bad I think.
Now I'm not saying that you can't try to make you guy effective by having high str/con as a fighter and then lower int, dex etc. but there is a HUGE difference between this and then dump stats of 1.
For me a true RPG must give you the chance to make meaningful decisions for your char by creating immersion in a universe with its own internal logic ie. your char must be "believable" within said universe. That is why I hate min/maxing because the internal logic is dead and hence there can be no immersion.
Nice post, I take it you're more a fan of western style RPGs, digitally at least, right?

I enjoy Titan Quest and I enjoy Fallout, I can see their differences but at the end of the day if they enable me to experience a compelling story, I'm in.

Min-maxing can kill that story for me if it takes me "off task" in games. That's my only gripe with it, not that it exists in general.
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
Landeril: not my kinda system lol.

Though FF2 has been pissing me off lately with its stat building system
avatar
GameRager: I also liked(offtopic but btw) the bestiary and hunter's guild system, and the whole storyline, even if used to death before. I dunno....it just seemed awesome to me. Plus some of the enemies are kinda cute to look at.
I did like the hunters guild <_<
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
jepsen1977: In CRPGs there is no such limitation and you could make a warrior with maxed out str. and then 1 in int, dex, wis and char. But how would you make a "story" about your char with those stats? You can't - and so when you min/max you play the system and NOT the story, characters, immersion etc. Some RPGs like Temple of Elemental Evil and Drakensang are so hard that you are forced to play this way (and even the Infinity Engine games can be brutally hard). In other words you can't survive unless you destroy your own immersion/enjoyment of the game and that's bad I think.
Now I'm not saying that you can't try to make you guy effective by having high str/con as a fighter and then lower int, dex etc. but there is a HUGE difference between this and then dump stats of 1.
For me a true RPG must give you the chance to make meaningful decisions for your char by creating immersion in a universe with its own internal logic ie. your char must be "believable" within said universe. That is why I hate min/maxing because the internal logic is dead and hence there can be no immersion.
Some people would consider those with high one/two stats and lower other stats as min-maxing as lowering everything else to 1.

I have no qualm with playing the former way btw, but the latter does seem a bit odd to play as such....i.e I always feel the need to give my char. some points in each stat to be a bit more balanced/able to play as I wish(within reason) during games.
Posted May 30, 2011
avatar
mystral: On the other hand, I fail to see how KotOR is one considering that it shares the same real-time with pause tactical combat as Baldur's Gate. The only differences is the camera angle, the fact that you have half as many party members, less variety of tactics and the combat is much easier. That's not enough to put the game in a different genre imo.
It's not hard to see how BioWare went from KOTOR to JE and then to ME. It's essentially the same system just refined, updated and improved. You can see KOTOR as either setting the template for the ARPG or as a third person Baldur's Gate and I think both views are valid but when I play ME and then play KOTOR the similarities are far more striking than the difference.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Compulsive min-maxing in RPG games(191 posts)(191 posts)
(191 posts)