A new role-model for rpg games: Pokemon
Kai Hortmann
Pokemon cartridge for it. And I found that it was an excellent role-playing
game, much more playable than Baldur's Gate for example. I think that PC rpg
designers should have a look to rediscover what makes a game playable. The
fact that you can't have fancy graphics and sounds on a Gameboy forces the
Gameboy games to win you over on the count of playability.
For those who don't know the Pokemon game, here is a short description:
Instead of having a "party of adventurers", you have a single "pokemon
trainer". A pokemon is a pocket monster. Your trainer is travelling the
lands and encounters wild pokemon and enemy trainers. Wild pokemon give not
only experience but you can also catch them to let them fight for you.
Trainers give you money if you win so you can buy items like healing
potions. The high playability comes from the high number of different
pokemon, 151 in total. Every pokemon has different attack moves that are of
advantage against different enemies. Face a fire pokemon? Bring out your
water pokemon! There are a lot of different strategic decisions to be made.
If you always use the same pokemon, it gains a lot of experience and grows
fast, but you might run into problems if you encounter enemies that are
resistant against your sort of attacks. You can only carry 6 pokemon with
you, so you have to build up a well rounded troup.
Compare this to a game like Might and Magic 8. Most people just complained
about the outdated graphics of this game and it being nearly identical to
MM6 and MM7. But the problem for playability of MM8 is the only real new
feature of it over the older versions: Hiring different adventurers. Only if
you are of higher level than a character you encounter he will be willing to
join you. And there is absolutely no interest in replacing your level 20
priest with a level 15 priest which is identical but not so good. On the
other side you have some places where you can free a level 50 character from
a curse or something and he will join you. A level 50 character replacing
your level 20 character just spoils all the fun of leveling.
I wish for a game similar to Pokemon for the PC. Given the unwillingness of
Nintendo to promote the PC as game platform it would have to be some sort of
rip-off. But seing Diablo/Darkstone/Revenant/Nox that should not be a
problem. On a PC you could still add stunning 3D graphics as long as the
original playability isn't lost by that. It is the basic principle that
counts, regardless of whether the characters are cute pocket monsters or
fearsome beasts or even some sort of human-like characters. The basic
principle is one-on-one combat with a lot of different "character classes"
where you chose with which of your "characters" you fight based on its
relative advantage in that situation and the need for him to gain
experience. Don't tell me that is impossible on a PC game! But I have never
seen anything similar on PC.
Christian Landry
Kai Hortmann <Kai.Ho...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:8gvmig$h7n$1...@news1.skynet.be...
> While I usually play rpgs on the PC, I recently bought a Gameboy and a
> Pokemon cartridge for it. And I found that it was an excellent
role-playing
> game, much more playable than Baldur's Gate for example. I think that PC
rpg
> designers should have a look to rediscover what makes a game playable. The
> fact that you can't have fancy graphics and sounds on a Gameboy forces the
> Gameboy games to win you over on the count of playability.
>
Have you read Jeff Greenspeak's column in Computer Gaming World about
Pokemon? He has a similar opinion (which I happen to agree with). That
game is incredibly addictive, and has nothing to do with the silly media
blitz that accompanied it. For the record, I've played and greatly enjoyed
games like Bard's Tale, Might & Magic, Ultima, Wizardry, and the 'Gold 'Box'
AD&D games.
Christian Landry
Tom Meyer
news:8gvmig$h7n$1...@news1.skynet.be...
> While I usually play rpgs on the PC, I recently bought a Gameboy and a
> Pokemon cartridge for it. And I found that it was an excellent
role-playing
> game, much more playable than Baldur's Gate for example. I think that PC
rpg
> designers should have a look to rediscover what makes a game playable.
No offense, but the game is so "playable" because it's so simplistic. Not
just simple, but simplistic. The game is Final Fantasy 7 dumbed down, and
ff7 was dumbed down as it was. Pokemon is basically a rail adventure with
simple combat. Your pokemon takes a turn and does one thing, the other
pokemon takes a turn and does one thing, ad infinitum. I would MUCH rather
take Fallout's open-ended, multiple-style of play, character generation,
moral decisions, and world exploration with multiple endings, and intricate,
action point, turn-based combat any day of the week.
Tom
kwarlord
Kai Hortmann <Kai.Ho...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:8gvmig$h7n$1...@news1.skynet.be...
> While I usually play rpgs on the PC, I recently bought a Gameboy and a
> Pokemon cartridge for it. And I found that it was an excellent
role-playing
> game, much more playable than Baldur's Gate for example. I think that PC
rpg
> fact that you can't have fancy graphics and sounds on a Gameboy forces the
> Gameboy games to win you over on the count of playability.
>
heh...
WE ARE THE POKEMON COLLECTIVE
WE WILL ADD YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DISTICNTIVENESS TO OUR OWN
YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED
RESISTENCE IS FUTILE
PIKA! PIKA!
--
___________________________________________________
my favorite video game quotes:
" I HAVE OBTAINED INFINITE POWER!" Baal, Grandia
"Piece of cake!" Guido, Grandia
"Takin down on the word go!" Anouncer in Pokemon Stadium
my first Website
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3726/index.html
My very own RPG site!
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/index.html
Some FAQs of mine (because the ones I was looking for plain sucked!)
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Forsaken_64_v12.txt
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Mario_Party.txt
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Gauntlet_Legends17.txt
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Monster_Rancher_2v11.txt
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Grandia11.doc
___________________________________________________
Christoph Nahr
<Kai.Ho...@skynet.be> wrote:
>While I usually play rpgs on the PC, I recently bought a Gameboy and a
>Pokemon cartridge for it. And I found that it was an excellent role-playing
>game, much more playable than Baldur's Gate for example. I think that PC rpg
>designers should have a look to rediscover what makes a game playable. The
>fact that you can't have fancy graphics and sounds on a Gameboy forces the
>Gameboy games to win you over on the count of playability.
I agree that Pokemon is a great design but I don't think it could
serve as a role model for PC games. When you take a closer look, it's
really just a standard RPG/adventure game where your party (= pokemon
with their trainer) travel from town to town, buy supplies, and fight
lots of staged and random battles in the wilderness.
As I see it, the whole Pokemon thing was a brilliant idea to make this
concept playable on the Gameboy: two parties don't actually line up
against each other, rather it's a sequence of one-on-one fights. The
Pokedex is a nice incentive to seek out random battles rather than
avoid them. You don't need a detailed storyline because having
trainers stage fights between their Pokemon is fun and makes sense.
And you avoid complex character development by offering tons of
pre-made pokemon, specialised along different skills.
It's fun on the Gameboy and cleverly works around its limitations but
I'm afraid the whole thing would be very boring if it was ported to
the PC... people would complain that all six of their Pokemon can't
fight at once, or that all areas look alike, or that there's no story,
and so on. And when you fleshed it out you'd suddenly have a
conventional RPG, just with funny pokemon for heroes.
Yeah, there are lots of different Pokemon but stripped of the cute
looks it's not that much more varied than what AD&D offers. A single
conventional RPG character has many more options than a single
Pokemon, just think of the different spells, skills, weapon, armour...
--
Visit http://uuhome.de/christoph.nahr/ for Might & Magic information
and game projects with source code for download: Star Chess & Hexkit
Kai Hortmann
<2mk8jsoguc269nia0...@4ax.com>...
>Yeah, there are lots of different Pokemon but stripped of the cute
>looks it's not that much more varied than what AD&D offers. A single
>conventional RPG character has many more options than a single
>Pokemon, just think of the different spells, skills, weapon, armour...
The brilliant idea of the Pokemon game is not the cute pokemon. The basic
difference between Pokemon and other rpg games is the way combat is handled
as one-on-one duels. A conventional rpg has either just a single character
or a group of characters that work together. Everybody has his speciality,
but there is often no strategic decision required. Who will open the chest?
The thief. Who will heal? The cleric. In combat each character might have a
different way to deal damage to the monster, the thief doing a backstab, the
fighter hacking with the sword and the mage and cleric casting spells. But
they are all doing it at the same time and there is not much choice.
The one-on-one duels as combat is the new concept that could be the
role-model for new PC rpg games. Imagine walking around the corner in a
dungeon, meeting a monster and HAVING TO CHOOSE whether you fight it with
your fighter or your mage. That would be a strategic choice. This is just
difficult to include logically in a conventional rpg because there is no
storyline to force one-on-one duels. The Pokemon story is very much honor
based. The main character is never in any sort of personal danger. He is
just challenged to put his pocket monsters in a series of duels against
another trainer. But any other story that would make duels logical would
work quite as well.
Sorry, I don't see a conventional rpg character having many more options
than a single Pokemon except for the spellcasters. The different weapons and
armours just end up as doing X points of damage and giving you armour class
Y. Can you name me a PC rpg game in which you saw a monster approaching and
said "Hmm, as it is that type of monster my fighter better change from using
a sword to using a spear"? Normally you sold the spear because a) the sword
does more damage and b) your fighter has better skill in swords. There is no
choice involved. A pokemon is much more like a spellcaster that decides that
attacking the fire elemental with a fireball is not really a good idea.
Any rpg consists of a) running around, b) combat and c) gaining experience
or equipment to increase your power. The running around part is basically
independant from the other two parts. You could easily combine the Baldur's
Gate maps and quests with the Pokemon combat system. Console ports like the
Final Fantasy series have usually been badly done because they ported the
good sides of the system as well as the bad. On a PC there is no reason for
having only a single save game or not being able to save everywhere. Because
of that I want to stress that I only want the Pokemon type combat system of
duels, not the same interface, linear story and bad graphics and sound. The
new role-model is the duel combat in which you chose in advance which of
your characters fights and changes during combat have some sort of penalty.
Kai.Ho...@Skynet.be
Brian H.
> Christoph Nahr wrote in message
> <2mk8jsoguc269nia0...@4ax.com>...
> >Yeah, there are lots of different Pokemon but stripped of the cute
> >looks it's not that much more varied than what AD&D offers. A single
> >conventional RPG character has many more options than a single
> >Pokemon, just think of the different spells, skills, weapon, armour...
>
> The brilliant idea of the Pokemon game is not the cute pokemon. The basic
> difference between Pokemon and other rpg games is the way combat is
handled
> as one-on-one duels. A conventional rpg has either just a single character
> or a group of characters that work together. Everybody has his speciality,
> but there is often no strategic decision required. Who will open the
chest?
> The thief. Who will heal? The cleric. In combat each character might have
a
> different way to deal damage to the monster, the thief doing a backstab,
the
> fighter hacking with the sword and the mage and cleric casting spells. But
> they are all doing it at the same time and there is not much choice.
>
Oh yeah, who will open the chest? The thief pokeman. Who will heal? The
cleric pokeman, similar depth of strategy.
> In combat each character might have a
> different way to deal damage to the monster, the thief doing a backstab,
the
> fighter hacking with the sword and the mage and cleric casting spells. But
> they are all doing it at the same time and there is not much choice.
?? The mage can choose to cast a variety of spells, defensive or offensive.
The cleric can choose not to heal. The fighter can choose to run and shoot.
> The one-on-one duels as combat is the new concept that could be the
> role-model for new PC rpg games. Imagine walking around the corner in a
> dungeon, meeting a monster and HAVING TO CHOOSE whether you fight it with
> your fighter or your mage. That would be a strategic choice. This is just
> difficult to include logically in a conventional rpg because there is no
> storyline to force one-on-one duels. The Pokemon story is very much honor
> based. The main character is never in any sort of personal danger. He is
> just challenged to put his pocket monsters in a series of duels against
> another trainer. But any other story that would make duels logical would
> work quite as well.
>
Just like some other reader pointed out, the pokeman style of gameplay is
"simplistic", or "simplified".
> Sorry, I don't see a conventional rpg character having many more options
> than a single Pokemon except for the spellcasters. The different weapons
and
> armours just end up as doing X points of damage and giving you armour
class
> Y. Can you name me a PC rpg game in which you saw a monster approaching
and
> said "Hmm, as it is that type of monster my fighter better change from
using
> a sword to using a spear"? Normally you sold the spear because a) the
sword
> does more damage and b) your fighter has better skill in swords. There is
no
> choice involved. A pokemon is much more like a spellcaster that decides
that
> attacking the fire elemental with a fireball is not really a good idea.
>
Err...
In FallOut2 sometimes I will use a sniper rifle to snipe an enemy far away
and use a super sledge hammer to swing an enemy nearby. And occasionally I
like to use a flamethrower to toast an enemy. If there are many opponents
charging at me then I just load a bozar to burst fire them. If the
opponents are robots I may choose to throw out pulse grenades. Well, you
can argue that FallOut2 is not a conventional RPG though.
> Any rpg consists of a) running around, b) combat and c) gaining experience
> or equipment to increase your power. The running around part is basically
> independant from the other two parts. You could easily combine the
Baldur's
> Gate maps and quests with the Pokemon combat system. Console ports like
the
> Final Fantasy series have usually been badly done because they ported the
> good sides of the system as well as the bad. On a PC there is no reason
for
> having only a single save game or not being able to save everywhere.
Because
> of that I want to stress that I only want the Pokemon type combat system
of
> duels, not the same interface, linear story and bad graphics and sound.
The
> new role-model is the duel combat in which you chose in advance which of
> your characters fights and changes during combat have some sort of
penalty.
>
I haven't played the pokeman game before but I did watch the pokeman cartoon
on the TV once or twice, very formula-ic(sp). Kids love them a lot, though.
> Kai.Ho...@Skynet.be
>
>
Jarno Kaarinen
>The one-on-one duels as combat is the new concept that could be the
>role-model for new PC rpg games. Imagine walking around the corner in a
>dungeon, meeting a monster and HAVING TO CHOOSE whether you fight it with
>your fighter or your mage. That would be a strategic choice. This is just
>difficult to include logically in a conventional rpg because there is no
>storyline to force one-on-one duels. The Pokemon story is very much honor
Similar thing happens in some PC RPGs. For example in Wizardy 7,
there's this room which you enter which causes your spellcasters to
"mute", meaning they can't cast any spells (combat nor healing
spells). So you have to rely on your fighters instead when fighting
inside the room.
>Sorry, I don't see a conventional rpg character having many more options
>than a single Pokemon except for the spellcasters. The different weapons and
>armours just end up as doing X points of damage and giving you armour class
>Y. Can you name me a PC rpg game in which you saw a monster approaching and
>said "Hmm, as it is that type of monster my fighter better change from using
>a sword to using a spear"? Normally you sold the spear because a) the sword
Ultima 7. You had these Glass Swords which would do lots of damage,
but work only once (as they are glass). I think they were usually
supposed to be saved until you met dragons or something.
>does more damage and b) your fighter has better skill in swords. There is no
>choice involved. A pokemon is much more like a spellcaster that decides that
There is more than that, for example in Wizardy 7 my Valkyrie (female
fighter) is in the back row, so she uses a spear in fighting so that
she can reach the enemies from the back row. Spear has better range
than a sword or axe.
>duels, not the same interface, linear story and bad graphics and sound. The
>new role-model is the duel combat in which you chose in advance which of
>your characters fights and changes during combat have some sort of penalty.
You select that when you make your party in a PC RPG. Should you
mostly have fighters or spell casters? Or some conjurers too? Or
alchemists which can prepare "spells" beforehand so that antimagic
(muted) areas or spells don't affect them?
Then if you see you have made some wrong decisions at the beginning,
you can try to change some character classes to others, but not
without penalty (race may not be that suitable for that certain class
etc.).
ian...@my-deja.com
"Kai Hortmann" <Kai.Ho...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Any rpg consists of a) running around, b) combat and c) gaining
experience
> or equipment to increase your power.
You just described a first-person shooter.
I thought there was something in there about "role-playing", too ? ie,
immersing yourself in a realistic character.
Pokemon is no-brainer fun, but it's not an RPG...it's tamagotchi with
bells and whistles.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gerry Quinn
>>Sorry, I don't see a conventional rpg character having many more options
>>than a single Pokemon except for the spellcasters. The different weapons and
>>armours just end up as doing X points of damage and giving you armour class
>>Y. Can you name me a PC rpg game in which you saw a monster approaching and
>>said "Hmm, as it is that type of monster my fighter better change from using
>>a sword to using a spear"? Normally you sold the spear because a) the sword
>
Some games do make an effort to have different types of damage
(typically slashing, crushing and piercing). But usually a
general-purpose weapon is still the best.
However, it's not unknown to have these effects. In many games a magic
weapon is needed to kill some monsters, so the +1 plastic dagger may be
better than the +0 titanium two-handed sword.
- Gerry Quinn
Christoph Nahr
<Kai.Ho...@skynet.be> wrote:
>The one-on-one duels as combat is the new concept that could be the
>role-model for new PC rpg games. Imagine walking around the corner in a
>dungeon, meeting a monster and HAVING TO CHOOSE whether you fight it with
>your fighter or your mage. That would be a strategic choice. This is just
>difficult to include logically in a conventional rpg because there is no
>storyline to force one-on-one duels.
Not just that -- in conventional RPGs you can always *choose* to send
in your characters piecemeal, so that a weak character stays away from
the fight, or maybe gains some extra experience by delivering the
final blow. Assigning different tasks to each of your characters
isn't so unusual in conventional RPGs as you make it out to be.
>Sorry, I don't see a conventional rpg character having many more options
>than a single Pokemon except for the spellcasters. The different weapons and
>armours just end up as doing X points of damage and giving you armour class
>Y. Can you name me a PC rpg game in which you saw a monster approaching and
>said "Hmm, as it is that type of monster my fighter better change from using
>a sword to using a spear"?
???
You're reaching here. You mentioned Might & Magic in your initial
post. Have you already forgotten that M&M has six schools of magic?
Various monsters are resistant against certain schools, and various
pieces of armour offer similar resistances to your characters. What
about creatures that can't be hurt by non-magical weapons? And most
RPGs model undead, particularly skeletons, in such a way that they
take more damage from blunt weapons. What about ranged weapons that
kill (some) enemies before they can close? Not in Pokemon at all.
>Normally you sold the spear because a) the sword
>does more damage and b) your fighter has better skill in swords. There is no
>choice involved. A pokemon is much more like a spellcaster that decides that
>attacking the fire elemental with a fireball is not really a good idea.
This *exact* example is already implemented in Might & Magic VIII!
Paula Reaume
kids quite for more then 5 minutes at a time is a God send),but I also don't
think it is the type of game an adult would find intetresting for very long.
I've played the game a few times and while I was mildly amused I never felt
a desire to continue. I believe that it is because I just don't feel any
emotional connection with the character. My favorite character has always
been the Paladin, when playing I enjoy the emotional aspects of trying to
make good moral judgements and doing what is right. I just can't identify
with a young boy and his Pokemon. On the other hand my three boys 11, 9, and
6 love it and they probably can identify with Ash. I guess what I'm trying
to say is that it is great as a rolemodel for children's RPG's but I think
it doesn't go deep enough or deal with subjects that would make an adult
think and feel.
Paulanews:8gvmig$h7n$1...@news1.skynet.be...
> While I usually play rpgs on the PC, I recently bought a Gameboy and a
> Pokemon cartridge for it. And I found that it was an excellent
role-playing
> game, much more playable than Baldur's Gate for example. I think that PC
rpg
> designers should have a look to rediscover what makes a game playable. The
> fact that you can't have fancy graphics and sounds on a Gameboy forces the
> Gameboy games to win you over on the count of playability.
>
Brian Robinson
> No offense, but the game is so "playable" because it's so simplistic. Not
> just simple, but simplistic. The game is Final Fantasy 7 dumbed down, and
> ff7 was dumbed down as it was. Pokemon is basically a rail adventure with
> simple combat. Your pokemon takes a turn and does one thing, the other
> pokemon takes a turn and does one thing, ad infinitum.
>
isn't complex, but there is quite a bit of strategy involved in finding
the right kind of Pokemon, training them to the appropriate levels,
giving them extra powers to even out their weaknesses, etc. You're right
about it being a rail based game and I think as far as being an RPG it
stinks. But it is a very fun game with deep gameplay.
> I would MUCH rather
> take Fallout's open-ended, multiple-style of play, character generation,
> moral decisions, and world exploration with multiple endings, and intricate,
> action point, turn-based combat any day of the week.
>
I certainly agree that Fallout is the game to play if you want to
play an RPG. However, Pokemon is still a fun game. And you can play it
on an airplane or on the can!
--
Brian Robinson
brob...@ist.ucf.edu
Institute for Simulation and Training
Brian Robinson
> Y. Can you name me a PC rpg game in which you saw a monster approaching and
> said "Hmm, as it is that type of monster my fighter better change from using
> does more damage and b) your fighter has better skill in swords. There is no
> choice involved.
>
They fall into three categories: Slashing (swords/axes), peircing
(spears), and bludgeoning (clubs, staffs). Each type of armor would have
different values against these. Skeletons would suffer greater against
bludgeoning weapons but not as much due to slashing and peircing since
they have no skin (imagine trying to fence with a skeleton). This hasn't
been in any of the ADnD games yet to my knowledge, but could make things
more interesting.
> Any rpg consists of a) running around, b) combat and c) gaining experience
> or equipment to increase your power.
>
Well, those are things found in most RPGs. Unfortunately... but
lets not get into that.
Brian Robinson
> In FallOut2 sometimes I will use a sniper rifle to snipe an enemy far away
> and use a super sledge hammer to swing an enemy nearby. And occasionally I
> like to use a flamethrower to toast an enemy. If there are many opponents
> charging at me then I just load a bozar to burst fire them. If the
> opponents are robots I may choose to throw out pulse grenades. Well, you
> can argue that FallOut2 is not a conventional RPG though.
>
You're usual bruiser with normal attacks won't phase him, but your Water
Pokemon will. Does your opponent have a Fire Pokemon? Don't use the
Plant Pokemon as he is vulnerable to Fire attacks. There is a great deal
of complexity in the game that is not apparent until you've played for a
few hours. In this sense, the linear aspect of the game is good as it
slowly introduces you to new challenges and makes you learn how to deal
with them one by one.
> I haven't played the pokeman game before but I did watch the pokeman cartoon
> on the TV once or twice, very formula-ic(sp). Kids love them a lot, though.
>
The Pokemon cartoon is pretty good. When I get up early enough on
Saturdays I usually watch it. Its funny and has lots of bizarre aspects
to it. I'm not sure what you mean about formulaic, though.
Brian Robinson
> I don't think Pokemon is by any means a bad game (anything that keeps my
> kids quite for more then 5 minutes at a time is a God send),but I also don't
> think it is the type of game an adult would find intetresting for very long.
>
playing Pokemon will not satisfy you. It is more a munchkin game.
However, there's a whole genre of munchkin games called Roguelikes which
are almost exclusively played by adults because children dislike their
depth and graphics.
> 6 love it and they probably can identify with Ash. I guess what I'm trying
> to say is that it is great as a rolemodel for children's RPG's but I think
> it doesn't go deep enough or deal with subjects that would make an adult
> think and feel.
>
Well, Pokemon is targetted at the 5-15 market, and they did a good
job there. Its not supposed to be emotionally deep, just good clean fun.
Sounds like you would enjoy Fallout or Planescape Torment a lot more.
Brian Robinson
> Pokemon is no-brainer fun, but it's not an RPG...it's tamagotchi with
> bells and whistles.
>
with identical features, such as the M&M games, Diablo, etc.
Paul Angstrom
wrote:
>Kai Hortmann <Kai.Ho...@skynet.be> blathered:
>> Y. Can you name me a PC rpg game in which you saw a monster approaching and
>> said "Hmm, as it is that type of monster my fighter better change from using
>> a sword to using a spear"? Normally you sold the spear because a) the sword
>> does more damage and b) your fighter has better skill in swords. There is no
>> choice involved.
>>
> One thing that is in the PnP ADnD rules is weapon damage types.
>They fall into three categories: Slashing (swords/axes), peircing
>(spears), and bludgeoning (clubs, staffs). Each type of armor would have
>different values against these. Skeletons would suffer greater against
>bludgeoning weapons but not as much due to slashing and peircing since
>they have no skin (imagine trying to fence with a skeleton). This hasn't
>been in any of the ADnD games yet to my knowledge, but could make things
>more interesting.
This sort of weapon type resistance and specialization is implemented in
Planescape: Torment.
Zachary S Tseng
"Brian Robinson" <brob...@figment.ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:8h3m6...@news1.newsguy.com...
> One thing that is in the PnP ADnD rules is weapon damage types.
> They fall into three categories: Slashing (swords/axes), peircing
> (spears), and bludgeoning (clubs, staffs). Each type of armor would have
> different values against these. Skeletons would suffer greater against
> bludgeoning weapons but not as much due to slashing and peircing since
> they have no skin (imagine trying to fence with a skeleton). This hasn't
> been in any of the ADnD games yet to my knowledge, but could make things
> more interesting.
Huh!? Have you checked out BG and/or PS:T? Weapon types, as well as AC
modifiers vs different weapon types, are factored into the game.
Cheers,
Cay
Paul Angstrom <angs...@no.spam.please> wrote in message
news:39359b9f...@news.remarq.com...
> On 31 May 2000 18:37:56 GMT, Brian Robinson <brob...@figment.ist.ucf.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Kai Hortmann <Kai.Ho...@skynet.be> blathered:
> >> Y. Can you name me a PC rpg game in which you saw a monster approaching
and
> >> said "Hmm, as it is that type of monster my fighter better change from
using
> >> a sword to using a spear"? Normally you sold the spear because a) the
sword
> >> does more damage and b) your fighter has better skill in swords. There
is no
> >> choice involved.
> >>
> >They fall into three categories: Slashing (swords/axes), peircing
> >(spears), and bludgeoning (clubs, staffs). Each type of armor would have
> >different values against these. Skeletons would suffer greater against
> >bludgeoning weapons but not as much due to slashing and peircing since
> >they have no skin (imagine trying to fence with a skeleton). This hasn't
> >been in any of the ADnD games yet to my knowledge, but could make things
> >more interesting.
>
> Planescape: Torment.
IIRC, it was in Baldur's Gate as well.
Brian H.
(*snip*)
> >
> The Pokemon cartoon is pretty good. When I get up early enough on
> Saturdays I usually watch it. Its funny and has lots of bizarre aspects
> to it. I'm not sure what you mean about formulaic, though.
>
I only watched it once or twice. But all of them are of the same story
structure:
1. The protagonist (the boy with a cap) with some friends travelled to
someplace to visit someone.
2. That someone has a pokemon (pokemon A).
3. A blue hair girlish guy and a pink hair lady wearing uniforms and a cat
pokemon in a truck travel by, thinking of the ways to catch that pokemon A.
4. Somehow they failed to get that pokemon A.
5. And then pokemon A fights with pikachu or some other pokemon.
I didn't say it's bad. I think it must be simple enough for kids to watch.
I do agree the pikachu and that turtle-like pokemon is cute. But I like
their cuteness is one thing, whether I like to watch their cartoons or play
them as an RPG, is completely another thing. And it won't be bad for an RPG
with pokemon for kids. Frankly, the RPGs now in the market are not quite
suitable for kids anyway.
[ . v/jek . ]
>This sort of weapon type resistance and specialization is implemented in
>Planescape: Torment.
and they claimed it was in Baldur's Gate. at least those attributes are
listed
and they explain what they mean by them.. I would assume it was included.
but I never paid any heed to it (always ment to).. Never knew all that about
the
skeletons. Humm.. I'll keep that in mind for BG2
(:: qiB ::)
[ . v/jek . ]
>You're usual bruiser with normal attacks won't phase him, but your Water
>Pokemon will. Does your opponent have a Fire Pokemon? Don't use the
>Plant Pokemon as he is vulnerable to Fire attacks. There is a great deal
>of complexity in the game that is not apparent until you've played for a
>few hours. In this sense, the linear aspect of the game is good as it
>slowly introduces you to new challenges and makes you learn how to deal
>with them one by one.
Excuse me, but I must remind you that the subject title says "new role
model for rpg games".. nothing stated here sounds very revolutionary.
Said it with me *ROLE playing game*.. I would rather
see innovation come in the form of PC-NPC interactions and more
complex dialog tree options (npc reaction scripts based off 100s of PC
specific
variables.. ect). Combat systems are nice, but I'd rather them be as complex
as possible, and 1-1 doesn't allow for that (although 1-23 does =)..
(:: qiB ::)
Falsadoom
gameboy Pokemon card game to be even better. It's based on the Wizard's of
the Coast Pokemon card game and is more complex, includes deck building, and
has just as much adventuring and collectability as the Pokemon games. I
checked it out when my kids really got into it, figured it would be
something in common, glad I did, as I love the card game as an alternative
to playing Magic the Gathering the card game or with the MPS version or even
the MTG Encyclopedia for online play. It has alot of the appeal that MTG
had. Monster Rancher which I first played on the SPS is also something that
has alot to offer as far as gleaning ideas for future RPGs. In Monster
Rancher, you place any CD (game or music) into the SPS, it then will
generate a seed based off the data on that CD. Then it randomly creates a
creature based on that seed, color, texture, body shape, stats, maxes,
length of life (yes you either let your monsters go before they die, freeze
them, or they just die) etc... You spend time training them and going
through the duels in the arena just like Pokemon. Matter of fact, it's
almost a given that Pokemon was derived from this game which barrowed from
Tomagatchi and then just marketed with Nintendo's market presence. Imagine
being a conjurer in an RPG, slap a CD in, and have a totally unique pet
unless someone with the same CD makes one too (Like both using the same
music CD). Imagine walking around in a multiplayer setting and being asked,
"Hey what CD did you use for that one?!..... and answering "I'm not telling
;-)" . Half the fun was making monsters and seeing what they would be
("Check out that one! Who ever thought Watne Newton would be so brutal" hehe
no I have no Wayne Newton CDs but you get my point). And who can forget Mail
order Monsters, as well as that toy that let you use grocery barcodes to
duel. This is a much under exploited area in games that could be easily
implemented.
Falsa
ian...@my-deja.com
Brian Robinson <brob...@figment.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> ian...@my-deja.com blathered:
> > Pokemon is no-brainer fun, but it's not an RPG...it's tamagotchi
with
> > bells and whistles.
> >
> I agree with you, yet it is billed as an RPG. So are many games
Yeah, completely. I think the genre's being watered down a lot with
these "battle-fest" games. (M&M, Diablo, Darkstone, Nox et al)
Don't get me wrong, combat has a very important role in RPG's, but it
does *not* define them.
If anyone out there hasn't played System Shock 2, please do so. You'll
be hard pressed to find a better game for immersing you into a "role".
Saving the Von Braun was my number one priority for about a month of my
life !! ;)
Later,
Ian
Paul Angstrom
<brob...@figment.ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
<8h3mj...@news1.newsguy.com>:
>Paula Reaume <pre...@ciaccess.com> blathered:
>> I don't think Pokemon is by any means a bad game (anything that keeps my
>> kids quite for more then 5 minutes at a time is a God send),but I also don't
>> think it is the type of game an adult would find intetresting for very long.
>>
> Certainly if you are into the emotional appeal of games and role
>playing Pokemon will not satisfy you. It is more a munchkin game.
>However, there's a whole genre of munchkin games called Roguelikes which
>are almost exclusively played by adults because children dislike their
>depth and graphics.
Out of curiosity, how is a Roguelike such as Nethack classified as a
munchkin game?
Brian Robinson
> Huh!? Have you checked out BG and/or PS:T? Weapon types, as well as AC
> modifiers vs different weapon types, are factored into the game.
>
course, combat was extremely silly in that game so I don't know why they
bothered.
Daniel Sjöblom
Brian Robinson <brob...@figment.ist.ucf.edu> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8h6ia...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Paul Angstrom <angs...@no.spam.please> blathered:
> > Out of curiosity, how is a Roguelike such as Nethack classified as a
> > munchkin game?
> >
> don't know where its at now. Angband, Crawl, ADOM, Omega, etc. are all
> munchkin games, though, and they are more representative of the game than
> Nethack.
>
No, you were correct, roguelikes are all about being a munchkin. Get the
Stormbringer and GDSM !!11111!!!
mr bernard langham
> munchkin game?
I imagine you could fairly say that any game where there's nothing to do but
kill things, grab their kewl l00tz, and level up, is pretty much a munchkin
game. IMO however, Diablo (graphics aside) has a long way to go before it
reaches the complexity and sophistication of Nethack -- which says something
about the quality of games in recent years :)
>^..^<
Bernard
--
mr bernard langham . blueboy@(diespamdie)ii.net . perth, western ashtraylia
cassetteNET/DIY lo-fi punkarama/indie vs major FAQ http://ii.net/~blueboy
--
"Feel free to cite, sample, steal, sell, reference, borrow or plagiarize
anything that I have created, thought or said. Information wants to be free
and intellectual property is both anachronistic and wrong" -- Meme #96
mr bernard langham
Isn't it? The GameBoy version seems very RPG-like to me. It has a fairly
engaging, sophisticated storyline (for what it is) with highs, lows,
revelations, treacheries, victories -- all yr standard RPG narrative ploys.
Shops, healing potions, fed ex quest... they're all there. The fact that
your captive monsters are doing the levelling-up instead of the main
character is just a minor twist.
In fact, Pokemon is just one example of a well-recognised "monster farming"
RPG sub-genre which has been a booming "new role model" in Japanese CRPGs
for several years now. Amongst Playstation RPGs alone, Jade Cocoon (which is
visually extremely gorgeous), Azure Dreams (which has Nethack-like random
dungeons) and, erm, the eponymous Monster Farmer spring to mind.
kwarlord
damn, you're stupid. Pokemon came before Monster Rancher. and the
abreviation for the Playstation is PSX, not SPS. Game Freak came out with
Pokemon, but it was originaly called Pocket Monsters. Pokemon did indeed
come after Tamagotchi, but Monster Rancher (Monster Farm in Japan) came out
a few years later (since the Gameboy has been out longer than the PSX was).
I don't even want to know what you think MPS is suppossed to stand for....
Falsadoom <fals...@home.com> wrote in message
news:y_qZ4.610$r7.3...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
kwarlord
Brian H. <bh1234...@nospam.please.ismart.net> wrote in message
news:8h4e92$k1...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> (*snip*)
> > >
> > The Pokemon cartoon is pretty good. When I get up early enough on
> > Saturdays I usually watch it. Its funny and has lots of bizarre aspects
> > to it. I'm not sure what you mean about formulaic, though.
> >
>
> I only watched it once or twice. But all of them are of the same story
> structure:
>
> 1. The protagonist (the boy with a cap) with some friends travelled to
> someplace to visit someone.
ASH Ketchum (its a bad pun) and they are trying to earn badges.
> 2. That someone has a pokemon (pokemon A).
Pikachu
> 3. A blue hair girlish guy and a pink hair lady wearing uniforms and a cat
> pokemon in a truck travel by, thinking of the ways to catch that pokemon
A.
Jessie has bright red hair (not a redhead) in a wierd cool style
James has blue hair
> 4. Somehow they failed to get that pokemon A.
Pikachu
> 5. And then pokemon A fights with pikachu or some other pokemon.
>
Koffing and Ekans (snake spelled backwards) fight with Pikachu and friends.
> I didn't say it's bad. I think it must be simple enough for kids to watch.
>
It doesn't always follow that story, mind you.
...what do you think this is? THE POWER RANGERS?! :-)
> I do agree the pikachu and that turtle-like pokemon is cute. But I like
> their cuteness is one thing, whether I like to watch their cartoons or
play
> them as an RPG, is completely another thing. And it won't be bad for an
RPG
you are wise, my friend. Pokemon: the game is worlds apart from Pokemon: the
franchise.
> with pokemon for kids. Frankly, the RPGs now in the market are not quite
> suitable for kids anyway.
>
there are some RPGs that are suitable for kids...but most try to sneak in
grownup stuff, like death and love.
I believe that Rhapsody is the latest "light-hearted" RPG for the
Playstation. It even features a Princess rescuing a Prince (yes, you heard
right).
> > --
> > Brian Robinson
> > brob...@ist.ucf.edu
> > Institute for Simulation and Training
>
>
--
___________________________________________________
my favorite video game quotes:
" I HAVE OBTAINED INFINITE POWER!" Baal, Grandia
"Piece of cake!" Guido, Grandia
"Takin down on the word go!" Anouncer in Pokemon Stadium
my first Website
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3726/index.html
My very own RPG site!
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/index.html
Some FAQs of mine (because the ones I was looking for plain sucked!)
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Forsaken_64_v12.txt
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Mario_Party.txt
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Gauntlet_Legends17.txt
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Monster_Rancher_2v11.txt
http://members.tripod.com/~kwarlord/Grandia11.doc
___________________________________________________
kwarlord
> [ . v/jek . ] <fm...@email.msn.com> blathered:
> > Excuse me, but I must remind you that the subject title says "new role
> > model for rpg games".. nothing stated here sounds very revolutionary.
> >
> comments were specifically addressing the critcisms about Pokemon's combat
> system, not its validity as an RPG.
>
if Pokemon isn't an RPG, then Wizardry isn't an RPG.
thanks for the laugh, troll.
Falsadoom
"kwarlord" <kwar...@ShPoAtMmail.com> wrote in message
news:8hethq$pma$1...@news.cmc.net...
>
> damn, you're stupid. Pokemon came before Monster Rancher. and the
> abreviation for the Playstation is PSX, not SPS. Game Freak came out with
> Pokemon, but it was originaly called Pocket Monsters. Pokemon did indeed
> come after Tamagotchi, but Monster Rancher (Monster Farm in Japan) came
out
> a few years later (since the Gameboy has been out longer than the PSX
was).
>
> I don't even want to know what you think MPS is suppossed to stand for....
I said I think or I do believe, I didn't say it did. Before all of it was
battle cards or monster cards sold at the hobby shop a good 10 years ago.
Thanks for clearing it up, it's nice to see kiddys out of school with thier
knee jerk assinine comments here to save us all from our stupidity.
Falsa
Morgul12
> The one-on-one duels as combat is the new concept that could be the
> role-model for new PC rpg games. Imagine walking around the corner in
a
> dungeon, meeting a monster and HAVING TO CHOOSE whether you fight it
with
> your fighter or your mage. That would be a strategic choice. This is
just
> difficult to include logically in a conventional rpg because there is
no
honor
> based. The main character is never in any sort of personal danger. He
is
> just challenged to put his pocket monsters in a series of duels
against
> another trainer. But any other story that would make duels logical
would
> work quite as well.
Um, this sounds quite a bit like the PC version of Magic the Gathering;
ever played Shandalar (the mini-game inside Magic the Gathering)? I
wouldn't exactly call this a new concept.
Jarno Kaarinen
>> Well, as I've also stated in this thread, Pokemon is not an RPG.
>
>Isn't it? The GameBoy version seems very RPG-like to me. It has a fairly
>engaging, sophisticated storyline (for what it is) with highs, lows,
>revelations, treacheries, victories -- all yr standard RPG narrative ploys.
Couldn't they just as well be called "adventure game narrative ploys"?
Or do RPGs and adventure games have distinctively different stories?
Brian Robinson
> if Pokemon isn't an RPG, then Wizardry isn't an RPG.
> thanks for the laugh, troll.
>
Hmm. That's the first time I've been called a troll for agreeing
with someone else's post. Wouldn't that make the original poster the
troll? Anyways, expressing your opinion is not trolling.
mr bernard langham
"Jarno Kaarinen" <ja...@remotel.com> wrote in message
news:rck6OTmnBl8tBG...@131.228.6.99...
> "mr bernard langham" <blu...@diespamdie.ii.net> wrote:
>
> >> Well, as I've also stated in this thread, Pokemon is not an RPG.
> >
> >Isn't it? The GameBoy version seems very RPG-like to me. It has a fairly
> >engaging, sophisticated storyline (for what it is) with highs, lows,
> >revelations, treacheries, victories -- all yr standard RPG narrative
ploys.
>
> Couldn't they just as well be called "adventure game narrative ploys"?
Of course.
> Or do RPGs and adventure games have distinctively different stories?
>
Not at all. As far as I can see, if one wants to be really reductive, an RPG
is simply an adventure game with stats.