Indigo_Dingo:

crimsondynamics:

Indigo_Dingo:
So you'd say the crash physics of Motorstorm would make it more realistic?

No, but the lack of crash physics or even the most rudimentary of damage modeling doesn't make it feel realistic either.

Generally speaking, a high speed crash against the wall isn't an expected result in a Gran Turismo, an added side effect of the realism aspect.

It might not be an expected side effect but it happens (frequently if you aren't good at racing simulations), which takes away from the aspect of realism. It's like throwing Matchbox(tm) or Corgi(tm) cars against the wall. It doesn't add any realism at all.

Motor racing involves crashes. Not all crashes have to render the car useless, but it can debilitate a car's performance. Just look at NASCAR or Formula 1. NASCAR's stock cars get crumpled all the time and are obviously affected by scrapes and fender benders but the drivers can continue racing and remain competitive despite the deficiencies in their banged-up vehicle. In Formula 1 collisions are all too frequent, forcing the driver to enter pits to replace a front nose, unless they choose to continue driving with the damage and considerably affecting their lap times.

These are all elements of real-world racing, something that GT lacks. Again, bouncing off a wall at high speeds and continuing driving is not akin to real life. Cars in real life don't bounce off walls, so I don't understand how you see it as an "added side effect of the realism aspect" in the GT series.

Indigo_Dingo:

crimsondynamics:

Indigo_Dingo:

crimsondynamics:

Indigo_Dingo:
So you'd say the crash physics of Motorstorm would make it more realistic?

No, but the lack of crash physics or even the most rudimentary of damage modeling doesn't make it feel realistic either.

Generally speaking, a high speed crash against the wall isn't an expected result in a Gran Turismo, an added side effect of the realism aspect.

It might not be an expected side effect but it happens (frequently if you aren't good at racing simulations), which takes away from the aspect of realism. It's like throwing Matchbox(tm) or Corgi(tm) cars against the wall. It doesn't add any realism at all.

Motor racing involves crashes. Not all crashes have to render the car useless, but it can debilitate a car's performance. Just look at NASCAR or Formula 1. NASCAR's stock cars get crumpled all the time and are obviously affected by scrapes and fender benders but the drivers can continue racing and remain competitive despite the deficiencies in their banged-up vehicle. In Formula 1 collisions are all too frequent, forcing the driver to enter pits to replace a front nose, unless they choose to continue driving with the damage and considerably affecting their lap times.

These are all elements of real-world racing, something that GT lacks. Again, bouncing off a wall at high speeds and continuing driving is not akin to real life. Cars in real life don't bounce off walls, so I don't understand how you see it as an "added side effect of the realism aspect" in the GT series.

Its an added side effect because the game stresses the realistic aspects from the drivers perspective - Formula 1 may involve crashes, but the drivers try as hard as they can to not, and has thus never been the likely occurrence.

And a small tip - never try to bring up Nascar to make a point - your acknowledgment of its existence makes your perceived intelligence drop 20 points.

The likely occurrence of what? An accident happening? They happen all the time. In fact, I challenge you to name a race in Formula 1 that was devoid of any form of accident.

Accidents are part of the sport. In most motor sports, drivers avoid accidents because crashes will affect lap times, but by suggest that it isn't a likely occurrence (crashes happen all the time) you're just misleading yourself.

I bring up NASCAR just as I would bring up any form of motor racing - or are you seriously suggesting that the sport doesn't exist? As much as I hate NASCAR it is very real and alive. You don't have to enjoy NASCAR to acknowledge it is the most popular form of motor racing entertainment in the world's largest consumer market.

I'll let you keep those 20 intelligence points I've dropped in case you need them. I still have more than enough to go around.

Indigo_Dingo:
Its an added side effect because the game stresses the realistic aspects from the drivers perspective - Formula 1 may involve crashes, but the drivers try as hard as they can to not, and has thus never been the likely occurrence.

What's your point? That the fact that drivers try to prevent crashes from happening means there's no need to simulate what might happen if you don't pay attention?

Woe Is You:
What's your point? That the fact that drivers try to prevent crashes from happening means there's no need to simulate what might happen if you don't pay attention?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Indigo_Dingo:
*SNIP*

crimsondynamics:
*SNIP*

You two are going way off topic.

Anyway I saw a lot of people say Oblivion as a good "FP"-RPG but what about Morrowind? Easily a better RPG in my eyes. Here's my list anyway.

RPG: Morrowind
FPS: Timesplitters 2
Bullet Hell: Ikaruga
Racing: Burnout (Any)
Fighting: Capcom Vs. SNK 2
2D Adventure: Super Mario World
3D: Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped

That's all for now.

perfectimo:

Indigo_Dingo:
*SNIP*

crimsondynamics:
*SNIP*

You two are going way off topic.

Anyway I saw a lot of people say Oblivion as a good "FP"-RPG but what about Morrowind? Easily a better RPG in my eyes. Here's my list anyway.

RPG: Morrowind
FPS: Timesplitters 2
Bullet Hell: Ikaruga
Racing: Burnout (Any)
Fighting: Capcom Vs. SNK 2
2D Adventure: Super Mario World
3D: Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped

That's all for now.

Yeah, sorry about that, although we were discussing about qualifying said game as the epitome of its genre.

I wouldn't place Super Mario in the 2D Adventure genre - isn't it more a "platformer"? I always associated SCUMM-like adventure games as, well, adventure games!

crimsondynamics:

perfectimo:

Indigo_Dingo:
*SNIP*

crimsondynamics:
*SNIP*

You two are going way off topic.

Anyway I saw a lot of people say Oblivion as a good "FP"-RPG but what about Morrowind? Easily a better RPG in my eyes. Here's my list anyway.

RPG: Morrowind
FPS: Timesplitters 2
Bullet Hell: Ikaruga
Racing: Burnout (Any)
Fighting: Capcom Vs. SNK 2
2D Adventure: Super Mario World
3D: Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped

That's all for now.

Yeah, sorry about that, although we were discussing about qualifying said game as the epitome of its genre.

I wouldn't place Super Mario in the 2D Adventure genre - isn't it more a "platformer"? I always associated SCUMM-like adventure games as, well, adventure games!

SCUMM?

perfectimo:
SCUMM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUMM

Some of the most memorable 2D "point-and-click" adventure games were the product of this scripting language.

crimsondynamics:

perfectimo:
SCUMM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUMM

Some of the most memorable 2D "point-and-click" adventure games were the product of this scripting language.

Well I'm not sure what this would fit into but, try me this description will be vague, there is this SNES game I used to play that was awesome and all I really remember was if you didn't move at the start a giant arm thing would grab you, there were black blobs that attacked you and that you were a child (I think you were a girl). Know the name?

ThrobbingEgo:

For Sidescrolling Platformers: Super Mario Bros 3.

Story FPS: Bioshock. As much as I love Half-Life 2, I thought rapture was a better setting. I didn't play system shock 2.

I'd suggest Super Mario Bros 3 & Sonic 2. Just so you've got both sides of the circle.

And you can't have Bioshock for a Story FPS epitome because the actual FPS is unbelievably bad. Boring repetitive enemies, shocking poor weapons, incredible easy and simple gameplay. The story FPS is won by Half Life 2 hands down.

RPG-FPS has still got to be Deus Ex.

Fallout 3 is freaking me out with the VATS system. It seems they tried to intentional break the free shooting engine to shoe horn it in. Its not hard like Deus Ex was hard in that you had really had to think through how to take out enemies, it just feels hard because the gameplay feels stupid (why for example does it take most of a clip of an assault rifle to blow someone's head off?).

rossatdi:

ThrobbingEgo:

For Sidescrolling Platformers: Super Mario Bros 3.

Story FPS: Bioshock. As much as I love Half-Life 2, I thought rapture was a better setting. I didn't play system shock 2.

I'd suggest Super Mario Bros 3 & Sonic 2. Just so you've got both sides of the circle.

And you can't have Bioshock for a Story FPS epitome because the actual FPS is unbelievably bad. Boring repetitive enemies, shocking poor weapons, incredible easy and simple gameplay. The story FPS is won by Half Life 2 hands down.

RPG-FPS has still got to be Deus Ex.

Fallout 3 is freaking me out with the VATS system. It seems they tried to intentional break the free shooting engine to shoe horn it in. Its not hard like Deus Ex was hard in that you had really had to think through how to take out enemies, it just feels hard because the gameplay feels stupid (why for example does it take most of a clip of an assault rifle to blow someone's head off?).

You haven't played Fallout 1 or 2 have you?

perfectimo:

Yu haven't played Fallout 1 or 2 have you?

No, and? I've played enough FPSs to know when something doesn't work. Don't get me wrong, I like the setting, I think it's awesome. I might even consider slugging it out. It just seems they've carefully removed any possibility of skill being a factor in a fire fight.

rossatdi:

perfectimo:

Yu haven't played Fallout 1 or 2 have you?

No, and? I've played enough FPSs to know when something doesn't work. Don't get me wrong, I like the setting, I think it's awesome. I might even consider slugging it out. It just seems they've carefully removed any possibility of skill being a factor in a fire fight.

That was Fallout. It was just seeing how to apply standard turn-based RPG elements to a game in a modern setting. It's like how in Oblivion when you hit someone with a sword in the arm they don't loose that arm. It's all about stats.

perfectimo:

That was Fallout. It was just seeing how to apply standard turn-based RPG elements to a game in a modern setting. It's like how in Oblivion when you hit someone with a sword in the arm they don't loose that arm. It's all about stats.

Don't get me wrong. I quite like strategic turn based stuff (after all I'm a former Games Workshop player!) but it seems they walked a middle line between strategy and skill and lost both. I think i would have genuinely preferred full on turn based rather than what seems like a mockery of an FPS.

The standard fire fight seems to go as follows:
Step 1) Run up reasonably close to enemy activate VATS.
Step 2) Remove enemies head, come out of VATS, run up to next enemy.
Step 3) Inject stim pack and continue.

I'm baffled as to why my sniper rifle with VATS, a high small arms skill and a the rifleman perk give me like 10% chance to hit at what I consider mid-range (judging by the huge beautiful terrain). But then when I just use the manual aim it'll hit most of the time.

Room clearing is all about: run up, VATS a head off with a shotgun, retreat round the corner until the enemies get a bit closer, repeat.

Indigo_Dingo:
I think they al;ready did that with weapon quality of less than 100% just shooting wildly without VATS.

But maybe I want to shoot with control without VATS, but you can't because all the weapons feel like broken toys. The reliable method seems to be run up, VATS head shot, run to next enemy, VATS headshot. FEEL THE IMMERSION!

And there you have the problem Fallout 3 faces. It sits there in an uncomfortable position of being an partly an FPS (real-time) and then trying to have turn-based elements (VATS) in for the measure. I personally think that the player's own aim factors too much into the equation and I'd rather have had a battle system similar to HOMM5 and/or SRPGs than the current thing they have.

rossatdi:

perfectimo:

That was Fallout. It was just seeing how to apply standard turn-based RPG elements to a game in a modern setting. It's like how in Oblivion when you hit someone with a sword in the arm they don't loose that arm. It's all about stats.

Don't get me wrong. I quite like strategic turn based stuff (after all I'm a former Games Workshop player!) but it seems they walked a middle line between strategy and skill and lost both. I think i would have genuinely preferred full on turn based rather than what seems like a mockery of an FPS.

The standard fire fight seems to go as follows:
Step 1) Run up reasonably close to enemy activate VATS.
Step 2) Remove enemies head, come out of VATS, run up to next enemy.
Step 3) Inject stim pack and continue.

I'm baffled as to why my sniper rifle with VATS, a high small arms skill and a the rifleman perk give me like 10% chance to hit at what I consider mid-range (judging by the huge beautiful terrain). But then when I just use the manual aim it'll hit most of the time.

Room clearing is all about: run up, VATS a head off with a shotgun, retreat round the corner until the enemies get a bit closer, repeat.

That's because Bethesda, and I am not a Bethesda hater for the record, was not the original company that made the game as you probably know and so they wanted to see if they could bring the game into 3D, it had a mixed reception. So the formula that worked for the original didn't translate well to 3D, in other words they should have kept it an isometric view.

perfectimo:

That's because Bethesda, and I am not a Bethesda hater for the record, was not the original company that made the game as you probably know and so they wanted to see if they could bring the game into 3D, it had a mixed reception. So the formula that worked for the original didn't translate well to 3D, in other words they should have kept it an isometric view.

I don't think it's bad. The actual setting and stuff is great. I just think it would have worked as a kind of strategic shooter (ie trek through the wastes, see a problem, look for a way round or a smart attack path) like STALKER.

Stats are great but they should be being used for non-combat skills. Let people be as good a shot as they want. Make them choose between bartering, speech, hacking and lock pick skills.

OR go the other way and go full RPG.

rossatdi:

perfectimo:

That's because Bethesda, and I am not a Bethesda hater for the record, was not the original company that made the game as you probably know and so they wanted to see if they could bring the game into 3D, it had a mixed reception. So the formula that worked for the original didn't translate well to 3D, in other words they should have kept it an isometric view.

I don't think it's bad. The actual setting and stuff is great. I just think it would have worked as a kind of strategic shooter (ie trek through the wastes, see a problem, look for a way round or a smart attack path) like STALKER.

Stats are great but they should be being used for non-combat skills. Let people be as good a shot as they want. Make them choose between bartering, speech, hacking and lock pick skills.

OR go the other way and go full RPG.

Anyway we went off topic. I don't have anything else to add to the thread so I'm off.

FPS - Bioshock

Halo, Riddick, COD4

Action/Shooter Gears of War 2

Gears of War, Syphon Filter

Action/Adventure - Shadow of the colossus

Fable, Little Big Adventure 2

Point and Click - Monkey Island 3

Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Sam and Max Hit the Road, Day of the Tentacle.

I haven't played much of Monkey 1 & 2 so I haven't included them.

Where's the love for 3rd person shooters? My vote would be for Ratchet and Clank.

Alex_P:
Game that best represents what RPGs are: Oblivion.
Game that best represents what RPGs could be: Torment.

-- Alex

Nicely put. I'd make it should though, instead of could.

Shooty-shooty: Deus ex. Yes, it's an fps, no, it's not an rpg. Sure, it has rpg elements, but it's still an fps, the way an interesting fps should be made. Don't try to tack it into another genre just because no other fps games can compare to it.

Click-click: Curse of monkey island. The third game. Just plain awesome.

Sneaky-sneaky: Thief 2. Yes, the first one is fun too, the third had some good ideas, but damn was that a badly designed game, I mean, damn, what the hell were they smoking?

Vroom-vroom car: Need for speed porsche edition. By far the best in the series, hell, the only good one n the series, from what I've seen. Whacky wheels and the first super mario gokarty thingy deserves honorable mentions.

Jumpy-jumpy: Super Mario Brothers deluxe for the gameboy. I loved that game. I hate that it got stolened.

Beat-stuff-up-and-gain-exp: Dungeon siege 1 and Divine divinity on a shared pedestial. Sacred and Diablo (first one) deserves honorary mentions, but they haven't really held up to time. The former was also a tad too repetitive to be fun for longer than short whiles.

Obscure 2, while an awful setting, a horrible story, and very uncooperative gameplay, deserves a huge mention as being conceptually, graphically (design-wise) and immersively one of the best horror games ever to honour the world with it's presence, but I wouldn't say that it was actually a good game. It was pretty awful actually. Mirror's edge falls in this cathegory too, but without the immersiveness and graphicalness.

Oh, and how could I forget... Mount and blade as best combat simulator, period.

Samurai Goomba:
Best Beat 'em up of all time: God Hand.

Spoiler: Click to View

I'm tempted to say beast game of all times even.
Finished it 21 times so far.

JRPG: Chrono Trigger, nothing has or will likely ever be as rawly fun and satisfying in this genre.

WRPG: I have to say KOTOR, it's more satisfying than Oblivion and has a better story than Fallout 3.

Racing: Burnout 3, the racing game for people who hate racing games. This is the ONLY driving game I own and probably ever will own.

Platformer: Hard to beat Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time really, but we'll see how the new prince handles things.

FPS: Half Life 2, sorry folks, it's gotta be Half Life, no other FPS will (or can) be as good. It still sucks me in like a... okay that's just inappropriate.

Fighting: I have a soft spot for Soul Calibur 2 but I really hate fighting games for the most part.

Strategy: I really love Medieval Total War 2, how can you not love a game where you can subjigate the pope, I mean really.

I've played a LOT of different genres over the years, so...

JRPG: Final Fantasy VI
WRPG: The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Turn-based Strategy: Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Real-time Strategy: Rome: Total War
Sports: ESPN College Hoops 2K5
Racing: Gran Turismo 4
City-building: Tropico
Trade simulation: Port Royale 2
Tycoon game: Railroad Tycoon 2 (why do I break these into subgenres? Because I love them enough that I've played enough to see the differences)
Fighting game: Street Fighter 2
Side-scrolling beat-em-up: Final Fight (arcade version)

the thing i liked best with Morrowind was the sheer size of the landscape, without quick travel exploring was much more fun. plus vampirism and lycanthropy, that was the shiz.

Casual game: Oblivion
Unrealistic racer: Gran Turismo
Roguelike: Spore (SecuRom)
Satire: Far Cry 2

Best 3D Beat em up - Devil May Cry 3
Best 2D Beat em up - Dungeons and Dragons: Shadow over Mystara
Best platformer - Mega Man Zero 3
Best Real Time Strategy - Starcraft: Brood War
Best Racing game - F-Zero GX

crimson5pheonix:
Where's the love for 3rd person shooters? My vote would be for Ratchet and Clank.

You have your genres confused, sir. Ratchet and Clank is an action platformer.

After thinking about it, genres have become far too segmented to warrant this thread. Look at platformers: You've got 2D platformers (the older Mario games), puzzle platformers (Braid), action platformers (Ratchet and Clank), adventure platformers (Psychonauts), and parkour platformers (Prince of Persia).

On a similar tangent: the Spike VGA's have nominees in each of the broader genres: shooter, fighter, RPG, individual sports, music, driving, and action/adventure. Here's what's retarded; they've got GTAIV, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space and MGS4 as the nominees for action/adventure. These games have nothing in common with each other. Seriously, can we move beyond "action/adventure" as a genre? The invisible pigeonholing committee seems to use this as a catch-all for anything that they can't classify, and it's starting to annoy me a little.[/rant]

rossatdi:

Indigo_Dingo:
I think they al;ready did that with weapon quality of less than 100% just shooting wildly without VATS.

But maybe I want to shoot with control without VATS, but you can't because all the weapons feel like broken toys. The reliable method seems to be run up, VATS head shot, run to next enemy, VATS headshot. FEEL THE IMMERSION!

It's an RPG not a first person shooter, they're not specifically about immersion. Yes it makes shooting too easy, but that's because its NOT A SHOOTER, it's an RPG with guns in it.

PedroSteckecilo:

rossatdi:

Indigo_Dingo:
I think they al;ready did that with weapon quality of less than 100% just shooting wildly without VATS.

But maybe I want to shoot with control without VATS, but you can't because all the weapons feel like broken toys. The reliable method seems to be run up, VATS head shot, run to next enemy, VATS headshot. FEEL THE IMMERSION!

It's an RPG not a first person shooter, they're not specifically about immersion. Yes it makes shooting too easy, but that's because its NOT A SHOOTER, it's an RPG with guns in it.

Perhaps they could have done it in a less blatant manner. Something like Deus Ex, where a rank in shooting means your actual in game shooting accuracy improves. Leave the hardcore stat %s to lockpicking, pickpocketing, persuasion, bartering, repairing, hacking, etc, etc.

There's no reason just because the game is an RPG it has to suck as a shooter. Despite the evidence.

rossatdi:

PedroSteckecilo:

rossatdi:

Indigo_Dingo:
I think they al;ready did that with weapon quality of less than 100% just shooting wildly without VATS.

But maybe I want to shoot with control without VATS, but you can't because all the weapons feel like broken toys. The reliable method seems to be run up, VATS head shot, run to next enemy, VATS headshot. FEEL THE IMMERSION!

It's an RPG not a first person shooter, they're not specifically about immersion. Yes it makes shooting too easy, but that's because its NOT A SHOOTER, it's an RPG with guns in it.

Perhaps they could have done it in a less blatant manner. Something like Deus Ex, where a rank in shooting means your actual in game shooting accuracy improves. Leave the hardcore stat %s to lockpicking, pickpocketing, persuasion, bartering, repairing, hacking, etc, etc.

There's no reason just because the game is an RPG it has to suck as a shooter. Despite the evidence.

It's also pandering to old school Fallout fans as the only good thing about Fallout 1/2's combat was the ability to shoot people in the nads, or punch scorpions in the brain.

...However I suppose I shouldn't be defending VATS to vemhently then, as I can no longer do either.

But I am not really a twitch gamer and prefer RPG's, I've also never played Deus Ex, and I find the non VATS combat in Fallout to be clunky and unresponsive. Because you know in a shooter, when I point my gun at the enemy, I'd kinda like the bullet to actually go straight. Unless I'm playing STALKER, at least then I expect my shots to not be worth a good god damn unless they're from very, very close.