Hello Guys:
Just curious, I was reading a very interesting thread about "why I don't like MMORPGs", some of them preferred Single Player Computer RPGs. Well I assume they are all videogame players or at least they try them very often. What about you? Do you like RPG computer games?
Do you feel the same excitement as you have your character sheet and go through an adventure with only your imagination while you look at a map? Do you play MMORPGs? Do you get the same experience as you get on a pen a paper RPG?
I occasionally play computer games, but they get old rather quickly -- while they often require cleverness, there's little or no opportunity for creativity. Roleplaying game allow, and often require, creativity.
I'll take creative any day.
|
I actually liked Computer RPGs until they stopped doing interfaces like those in Might and Magic:World of Xeen and Eye of the Beholder. I really liked the way they played then. The whole top-down, mini-interface thing really turns me off. I also like turn-based computer RPGS. I want to be able to look through my inventory and spells without a dude teeing off on my party for a while. MMORPGS, I have never tried and I don't plan to. I don't have the time to dedicate to them and I disagree with paying forever for a game I had to buy.
Tabletop is great, but dealing with people sucks. Everyone (myself included) has issues and are generally annoying. Still I enjoy laughing with people and I would rather be killing a dragon while doing so.
|
I've played all of them, and each has their strengths and weaknesses.
MMORPGs allow you to get together with many people, and experience a great number of things. The inherent problems are that roleplaying is light, if non-existant, and those things you've done get to be done by everyone. There is also virtually no room for creativity, since if you find a way to kill an enemy very easily compared to another character of equal level, it must be imbalanced. Finally, you must pay regularly for them.
Player 1: "Wait, you killed Elkarr the Malevolent? But, I killed Elkarr the Malevolent! I have his Arcane Staff of Heavenly Lightning right here."
Player 2: "Maybe he got better."
Examples: WoW, EQ2
Single Player Computer RPGs are great because the story revolves around you. Nothing happens without you're input. The whole game is a series of reactions to your actions. The downsides is that these are not made with you specificly in mind. Instead of being tailored to your experiences, they are far more general. There is little room for Additionally, while the story itself may or may not be known to you; all interaction you have is scripted, and while it may branch(alternative choices in situations), it is ultimately predictable.
NPC: "Hurry! Go inside and clear out our enemies so that we can make our way to the top and release the magical seal."
Player: "But, there's a ladder, right over there, why don't we just use that and avoid the bad guys altogether?"
NPC: "Hurry! Go inside and clear out our enemies so that we can make our way to the top and release the magical seal."
Player: "That's odd, I can't for the life of me pick up this ladder, even though its laying flat on the ground and doesn't exceed my weight limit. Think you might give me a hand here?"
NPC: "Hurry! Go inside and clear out our enemies so that we can make our way to the top and release the magical seal."
Player: "You have no idea what I just said, do you?"
Examples: Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, Star Wars- Knights of the Old Republic
Tabletop RPGs are great because they allow you to have several people together, the story to be focused on each of you, either all at once or one at a time; there is a lot more leeway with creativity, as you can try mixxing that Potion of Fire-breathing with your Oil of Noxious Vapors(just don't expect that it won't explode); and developments that are only partially predictable. Unfortunately, you risk playing with some total jerks or fairly creepy people; players who have to be in the spotlight all the time; if you make a really big mistake and screw yourself over, you cannot reload an old save.
Rogue Player: Okay, I've had my fun with the Baron's daughter, I'd like to make my way out quietly and rejoin the party.
DM: Make your sneak check.
Rogue rolls and fails.
DM: Oh, I'm sorry, but in your rush, your pants leg catches a chair, making a racket, and bringing the guards down the hall in, finding you spawled out with one leg dressed and the rest of your clothes spread across the room, and the Baron's Heiress covering herself with her bedsheets.
Rogue Player: Oh no.
DM: Oh yes. As you try explaining things to the guard holding you there, the other brings the Baron. With an angry scowl on his face, he looks you straight in the eyes and offers you two options. Marry his daughter and be conscripted into service of the Kingdom, or face execution for defiling his seed.
Wizard Player: I'd offer you a Mentos, but I don't think that'll get you out of this one. *chortle*
I don't think we need examples of this on this forum. :P
NPC: "Hurry! Go inside and clear out our enemies so that we can make our way to the top and release the magical seal."
Player: "But, there's a ladder, right over there, why don't we just use that and avoid the bad guys altogether?"
NPC: "Hurry! Go inside and clear out our enemies so that we can make our way to the top and release the magical seal."
Player: "That's odd, I can't for the life of me pick up this ladder, even though its laying flat on the ground and doesn't exceed my weight limit. Think you might give me a hand here?"
NPC: "Hurry! Go inside and clear out our enemies so that we can make our way to the top and release the magical seal."
Player: "You have no idea what I just said, do you?"Examples:...
LOL
I also like turn-based computer RPGS. I want to be able to look through my inventory and spells without a dude teeing off on my party for a while.
Perhaps this is one of the things that many tabletop gamers and I can't stand from MMORPGs turn based combats allow you to make an estrategy and the intelligent use of all your resources, that include feats, adquired items, spells, skills and all your weapons. Try to do that on a MMORPG and you will be death before you find the right spell for the right situation.
I think Cato summed it up for me as well very succinctly, but I would add one comment on the MMORPG side (which I dallied with for 5 years, EQ and WoW):
I found the level of player interaction degraded quite a bit as you got to the higher levels. Unfortunately when you get to a certain point (in EQ, not as bad in WoW) you need to group in larger and larger groups. Where once 6 players working together would do, it mushrooms to 18, then 36 ..etc. etc. This might not seem so bad considering how many players there were, but most folks at that rareified level were busy persuing their own agendas, and would only do something altruistic, like going after a high-level item for another player if there was a guild involved. Guild politics became very tiresome ... it was often like herding cats:
Guild leader: Ok we are heading to the Temple of Unspeakable Evil to go after the boss mob Ickyspell.
Guildmember 1: There's nothing in that place for a rogue. let's go to Stabbyville.
Guild leader: We decided on the Temple at the guild meeting last night.
Guildmember 1: But I was in school and I couldn't attend!
Guildmember 2: stop being such a whiny b*tch, we are going to the Temple!
Guildmember 1: Who are you calling a b*tch @zzhat?
ad nauseum
There was always the push for the next level, the next shiny, the kewl 1337 lewt. These raids would be a bear to configure, then would often drag on to over five hours of constant play. Those of us with day jobs just couldn't compete.
I love pen and paper because I control the narrative as DM, or I am the star as player. I don't feel like I have to stroke the ego of some 14-year-old jerkwad in Paducah who through sacrificing his sanity has become a 99th level Necromancer and is now trying to get his server rating to number one so that he can brag about it in the open server chat.
I, too, have played each of these types of games, and as others have said, each has strengths and weaknesses. One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the graphic nature of a computer game. You can actually see your character, his magical sword or staff, and the world he's in. I have no qualms admitting taking a great amount of inspiration from WoW. The first time I approached the Gates of Ironforge, or looked out into the Searing Gorge, rode through the eerie Felwood and fled in terror from the Scourge in the Plaguelands; it was awesome and felt really "fantastic" and "epic."
However, all the other problems mentioned with MMORPGs are very real. There's almost no roleplay, and the social interaction has all the potential for irritation and annoyance that it does in tabletop games. Moreso, really, since you meet more people and they all have the empowering anonymity of the internet. No matter what, your character is a total nobody until your maximum level, at which point you can begin to work on becoming impressive, but only if you're willing to sell your soul to the game. Then the next expansion comes out and all that crap you went through is negated as the process begins anew.
I often prefer single player RPGs, which have all the graphical impact of an MMO, but the lack of social interaction gets to me in those cases. They are also often extremely linear, which reduces the replay value since you'll just do the same thing again and again. One of the good things about the original NWN was the toolset it provided and the community of module designers which grew up around it. There were hundreds of different modules available for free download, allowing for continual new experiences within that one game. One of NWN2's biggest failings is that the toolset appears to be too intimidating and foreign, not at all as easy to use as its predecessor's, and thus there is a paucity of modules available.
The Elder Scrolls do the best job out there of providing a non-linear, open-ended play experience, hands down. But there's no real potential for roleplaying or even significant social interaction of any kind, which develops into a different kind of repetativeness. This is particularly pronounced in Oblivion, which has far fewer optional quests and faction-based missions than Morrowind did, and dungeons which are far more repetative.
I recently re-installed Baldur's Gate II on my computer, and believe it is perhaps the best D&D (computer) game ever made. It combines a large party size with vocal party members, who respond to frequent scripted and random cues to provide the illusion of playing with other, real people. It also has a compelling main story mixed with an enormous number of side quests, the availability of which will differ depending on the class you play and choices you make within the game. As a tabletop D&D player, the outdated graphics don't bother me at all.
Then we come to tabletop games. Obviously these have the greatest potential for roleplaying and significant social interaction, are the most responsive to actions taken by characters, are are hopefully the least repetative and non-linear of the bunch. Of course, the game is a continual complication, as the players make one unexpected choice after another. This is both the beauty of a tabletop RPG, and a major headache for the GM. Epic scenes may often not play out as "epic" as one had hoped, limited by the players' understanding of the situation, interest in and ability to roleplay (the two are not the same), and the lack of graphical input (which often complicates the aforementioned understanding of the situation at hand). But of course, tabletop games provide me, personally, with the most satisfaction of all, and I presume the same is true for almost every other poster on these boards.
|
Single player CRPGs offer me one thing: the opportunity to play a moderately interactive story in a fantasy genre, possibly with a game system whose mechanics I enjoy. For the most part, I get frustrated with the scripting and railroading, but I prefer this to no script (see below). The biggest problem is not the limitations of programming reactions or situations to cover human creativity (I understand that going in). What gets me angry is when games decide things for you: case in point, Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark. I am playing an epic-level wizard, Halastar casts a geas on me, and I am stuck following his stupid quest.
MMORPGs offer me nothing. I used to play the Ultima series, dating back to Ultima 6. Aside from frustrating real-time combat, I enjoyed the open freedom the game worlds, and expected the same thing from Ultima Online. Until I got killed by a bunch of bandits after 12 hours of play, who hoarded my corpse and laughed at me. It was then that I realized that I can barely tolerate most people in real-life, nevermind in a faceless quagmire of gray ethics and limited moral centres. I haven't touched an MMORPG since.
RPGs offer me everything I have wanted since 3rd Grade, when I would run around the playground pretending to be a soldier, or a knight, or a superhero, with only my imagination as a limit. RPGs provide a realistic grounding for me to share an experience with a group of people. I used to hesitate finding groups, because after my online experience I thought it would be more time consuming in real life - but in reality, it is a lot easier to find a good group, because real people are reasonable and open.
Real-life interaction all the way!
I, too, have played each of these types of games, and as others have said, each has strengths and weaknesses. One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the graphic nature of a computer game. You can actually see your character, his magical sword or staff, and the world he's in. I have no qualms admitting taking a great amount of inspiration from WoW. The first time I approached the Gates of Ironforge, or looked out into the Searing Gorge, rode through the eerie Felwood and fled in terror from the Scourge in the Plaguelands; it was awesome and felt really "fantastic" and "epic."
However, all the other problems mentioned with MMORPGs are very real. There's almost no roleplay, and the social interaction has all the potential for irritation and annoyance that it does in tabletop games. Moreso, really, since you meet more people and they all have the empowering anonymity of the internet. No matter what, your character is a total nobody until your maximum level, at which point you can begin to work on becoming impressive, but only if you're willing to sell your soul to the game. Then the next expansion comes out and all that crap you went through is negated as the process begins anew.
I often prefer single player RPGs, which have all the graphical impact of an MMO, but the lack of social interaction gets to me in those cases. They are also often extremely linear, which reduces the replay value since you'll just do the same thing again and again. One of the good things about the original NWN was the toolset it provided and the community of module designers which grew up around it. There were hundreds of different modules available for free download, allowing for continual new experiences within that one game. One of NWN2's biggest failings is that the toolset appears to be too intimidating and foreign, not at all as easy to use as its predecessor's, and thus there is a paucity of modules available.
The Elder Scrolls do the best job out there of providing a non-linear, open-ended play...
Valuable opinion, thanks Saern
I figuring out that MMORPGs and CRPG are a good option when not a playing group but our hearts are tied to tabletop RPGs. But I would like to know if someone over there (tough since this a tabletop site) thinks MMORPGs or CRPGs offer the ultimate experience to him/her. That is, is somebody here to defend the other side and show some good arguments?
Another matter over here is real time strategy vs turn based strategy what do you prefer?
I tried a d20 computer game once, and VERY quickly (like, within 30 minutes total playing time) became bored and wandered off. I like the tabletop game because it's an excuse to share a hobby with friends. In fact, if I wouldn't happily spend time with the people I game with doing other stuff, I wouldn't game with them, either.
I dislike real-time strategy games because a computer can always "click" faster than a person. Turn-based is the only way to go, for me.
I tried a d20 computer game once, and VERY quickly (like, within 30 minutes total playing time) became bored and wandered off. I like the tabletop game because it's an excuse to share a hobby with friends. In fact, if I wouldn't happily spend time with the people I game with doing other stuff, I wouldn't game with them, either.
I dislike real-time strategy games because a computer can always "click" faster than a person. Turn-based is the only way to go, for me.
The same for me I was dreaming for more than 2 years to have wide band Internet in my home (only to try a MMORPGs) and the first day I had it I could not play not even half an hour before I got bored.
I really hate real time battles, they lack that flavor of a well thought RPG, wen I try a real time battle in a game I feel that everything I have in my inventory is useless and the only useful on that situation is the edge of my weapon. If I want hack and slash better take Ninja Gaiden. For me real time battle RPGs are only hack and slash games with fantasy elements.
Well, in theory, real time battles are awesome because of all the action and the chaos and the energy, etc., etc. In WoW, I used to love to scope out the terrain in a battleground and try to think of good strategies that would win the fight. Problem is, no one ever listened. Not just to me. They didn't listen to anyone. The idiots would flail around trying to increase their kill scores and those of us who actually cared about strategy and the supposed point of that section of the game were just SOL.
When it comes to single player RPGs, it depends. I love the real time combat in Oblivion, but I hate it in Neverwinter Nights, particularly NWN2. Case in point: I shoot a web spell. Too bad the designers decided it would be cooler for some little ball to have to bounce around a few times before the spell actually takes effect, conveniently allowing the entire battlefield to change by the time my spell goes off and often rendering the effort useless or, worse, harmful to my own party. Same thing with fireball. Not nearly so fun when the warrior is actually charging down the hall and has a good chance of entering the area of effect before you finish casting, though he was certainly clear beforehand (and I'm not about to cop out and turn the difficulty down so I can't roast my own party).
Even in the first NWN, it was annoying. The game tried to shoehorn D&D's turn-based battle system into real time. The end result is your character standing around for five of every six seconds in a round doing nothing but some type of weird shuffle dance.
But then we get to turn based games, particularly tabeltop. I get all the time in the world to look over the field, consult with fellow players, and devise a strategy. It can even be fun when you don't necessarily have any good options.
"Crap. I don't have anything that will work. Wait... AHA! Give me that PHB... no, crap, it doesn't do what I thought. But what if I used it like this?" Wonderful. As was said earlier, you don't have the time to be this creative when you're playing a game with real time battles. You have to act fast, which means coming up with a small number of quickly employed tactics and strategies. If you can pause the game (such as in NWN and Oblivion), the problem is mitigated to an extent. You're just screwed in a game like WoW. This gets particularly boring, since 90% of all fights in WoW are essentially repeatedly pressing the same three buttons over and over in a slow, timed sequence. Turn-based games, particularly D&D, definitely give me the most rewarding experience during a fight.
|
|
Someone mentioned Real-Time and Turn-Based Strategy games, and my answer is that I don't like either. Too much micro-management, I don't want to have to continuously build farms for my peasants. They're peasants, they should be building their own damned farms. Plus the fact that building people always drops me out of the immersion right away.
I do like Tactical Strategy Games in which you don't mine, don't build, and don't "make" troops. An example is Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines.
An example is Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines.
Perhaps one of the best tactical games ever.
I love the real time strategy games. And also play some MMORPGS. I think they should drop the RPG part of the name ans nobody ever does Roleplay.
My first love is still tabletop. The whole group dynamic clinches it for me. That said... My playing group also plays Guildwars together. This by FAR is the single best MMO i've played yet. There is no grind and equipment is secondary to your playing skill. The whole game (and expansions) are based around a storyline and the quests and missions follow that storyline. You get a feel for the game world and NPCs much more than others.
Plus there is no grinding out levels like some games.
|
|
I tried a d20 computer game once, and VERY quickly (like, within 30 minutes total playing time) became bored and wandered off. I like the tabletop game because it's an excuse to share a hobby with friends. In fact, if I wouldn't happily spend time with the people I game with doing other stuff, I wouldn't game with them, either.
I dislike real-time strategy games because a computer can always "click" faster than a person. Turn-based is the only way to go, for me.
Not to mention more accurate clicking. I get so mad when I am in real-time combat and I accidentally click a chest or minion with a special attack, waste the attack, and draw a bunch of attacks while my character runs around like and idiot or just stands there due to an invalid command. ARG!
For turn-based computer strategy games, the best I've ever played is -- believe it or not -- "Robert E. Lee: Civil War General." You can tell your units to force march, dig in, rest, etc. Morale and ammunition have actual impacts on combat outcome, so in that respect it's probably too "fiddly" for you, Cato.
I am a table top RPGer for 18 years or so. The absolute BEST aspect of it was the social interaction, in and out of game play. That is what made the game for me. On a slow night, it was a game I loved. On a great night, it was a party!
That said, I like the technology aspect of role playing ( just getting into PbP and loving it). Having PDF books and being able to project maps and pictures on a wall or screen are great.
That said, I hate MMORPGs and most electronic role playing games. Most of my reasons for this have been mentioned above. In the end they are just too restrictive to the imagination. It will be a sad day in Midgard when a supercomputer can compete with the versatility and imagination of the human mind my friends.
Luckily that day is far, far away. In the meantime we can enjoy each other... err in a game.... ahh, I mean play with each other as part of a game... oh forget it!
|
|
It will be a sad day in Midgard when a supercomputer can compete with the versatility and imagination of the human mind my friends.
Luckily, even if humans are still around, they will have nothing to fear because they will never know it is happening. Nanobots will take care of all of our fears and make us trust the machines way before a supercomputer has an imagination.
|
|
For turn-based computer strategy games, the best I've ever played is -- believe it or not -- "Robert E. Lee: Civil War General." You can tell your units to force march, dig in, rest, etc. Morale and ammunition have actual impacts on combat outcome, so in that respect it's probably too "fiddly" for you, Cato.
Sounds like its on the borderline. The morale factor might get annoying(like KotOR 2's Influence system or GTA4's Friend/Relationship system), but the idea of ammo and so forth might work out. Tell me, do you have to build soldiers or mine ammunition?
|
|
For turn-based computer strategy games, the best I've ever played is -- believe it or not -- "Robert E. Lee: Civil War General." You can tell your units to force march, dig in, rest, etc. Morale and ammunition have actual impacts on combat outcome, so in that respect it's probably too "fiddly" for you, Cato.Sounds like its on the borderline. The morale factor might get annoying(like KotOR 2's Influence system or GTA4's Friend/Relationship system), but the idea of ammo and so forth might work out. Tell me, do you have to build soldiers or mine ammunition?
Some of the best turn-based strategy games I've ever played are the fire emblem and advance wars series' for the GBA.
In fire emblem, you can only use a weapon so many times before it breaks and units that have a good relationship support each other which results in combat bonuses when they are close. Good stories and awesome gameplay, but people can't be brought back from the dead and you only get so many throughout the game.
Advance wars is made by the same people, but it's more modern/slightly advanced. Units have ammo and rations/fuel, but you can build soldiers/tanks/planes/boats. To win a normal game, you have to either destroy all of your opponents units or capture their HQ, but the campaign mode has some weird win conditions. Story and names of countries could be better, but the gameplay mechanics make up for it.
Definitely the best handheld turn based strategy games I have ever seen
|
Ok I admit I skipped most of the replies. Each of the have their strong points and weak points. Video games you can play when ever you get time and don't have to worry about trying to get friends together. But they are no where near as indepth and fun as a good RPG around the table. MMORPG kinda splits the middle you have some social aspects, grouping ect like TT games but no where as indepth. But more so than your single player ones.
I mostly play MMORPG's cause i can log on when i want find people and play and have fun. I also do single player games but mostly strat or Madden games but I tend to get bored and miss the social interaction with them. Of course TT is the best but it is hard enough trying to do it for 4-5 hours once a week as it is. So the others fill the void in the rest of the time so i can avoid the hateful burning ball of yellow in the skin that tries to burn me.
Sounds like its on the borderline. The morale factor might get annoying(like KotOR 2's Influence system or GTA4's Friend/Relationship system), but the idea of ammo and so forth might work out. Tell me, do you have to build soldiers or mine ammunition?
You're commanding armies, not individuals, so the scale is a lot different than, say, WoW. Each "turn" involves 2 basic steps:
1. You choose where to spend your funds -- more units, better weapons, more ammo, better food, etc. (you can also choose types of units: infantry, artillery, etc., or even add sniper units to kill enemy leaders).
2. You tell the units where to go and what to do when they get there. Morale is automatic; if you march 'em all day and the food is inadequate, they automatically fight poorly, even if they outmatch an enemy unit. Morale (or at least fighting effectiveness) also seems impacted if a sniper unit kills the (otherwise faceless) unit leader. Groups that are "dug in" fight better if they're attacked than a group ready to move. Surrounded units that are outfought are destroyed; ones just attacked from one side can usually pull back and regroup.