Dvorak says computer gaming is dead

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all

I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that their
motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making good
games. Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are inheritently
false, it an interesting opinion.

I started coding a roguelike because to me it was basically an RPG, and
I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that graphics
make a good game.

--
Jim Strathmeyer

 

[Antoine]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
> There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
> http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
>
http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all
>
> I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
> game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
> problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that
their
> motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making
good
> games. Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
> have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
> statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are
inheritently
> false, it an interesting opinion.
>
> I started coding a roguelike because to me it was basically an RPG,
and
> I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that
graphics
> make a good game.

I see Dvorak's point. Although I think he's saying that the industry is
going to be dying in a few years, rather than that it is dead now.

I think he's missing the big development of the last few years, though:
massively multiplayer online games [with good graphics]. Very
successful, very addictive, and I think they have a great deal of
mileage in them. Not that I personally find them interesting, but.

A.

P.S. I went into a computer game store yesterday and felt quite lost.
All the games looked the same, none of them looked interesting, I
couldn't figure out if I should buy any of them, or if so, which.
Anyone else feel this way?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Antoine wrote:
> P.S. I went into a computer game store yesterday and felt quite lost.
> All the games looked the same, none of them looked interesting, I
> couldn't figure out if I should buy any of them, or if so, which.
> Anyone else feel this way?

Yup. No roguelikes on the shelves ;-)
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"Come on, Kornel. 11 years and no binary? And it's not
vapourware?" -- Mike Blackney

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Antoine wrote:
> I think he's missing the big development of the last few years, though:
> massively multiplayer online games [with good graphics]. Very
> successful, very addictive, and I think they have a great deal of
> mileage in them. Not that I personally find them interesting, but.

No. MMORPGs may be addictive but they *are* stupid. When I play them I
feel addicted, but afterwards I've got a terrible hangover, for I feel
I've wasted a lot of time, and there isn't anything interesting I can
recall. Nothing changes in MMORPGs -- it's just the experience points
and level of your character. Oh, you mean there are other people there?
Well, I far more like to chat face-to-face... Especialy that the amount
of roleplaying in MMORPGS is almost non-existent (and what kind of
role-playingg is that, when you know this guy has 20 more levels then
you and could pulverize you in a second... -- and if it's a nonkiling
game, then it's even more pointless...)
--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"Come on, Kornel. 11 years and no binary? And it's not
vapourware?" -- Mike Blackney

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl>:
>recall. Nothing changes in MMORPGs -- it's just the experience points
>and level of your character.

Apart from MMOs like Planetside and Puzzle Pirates that don't have
levelling.

The term "RPG" is particularly pernicious here. It was bad enough for
single-player games that got called RPGs because they had sub-D&D
mechanics; but then people decided to make MMO versions of those games,
called them MMORPGs, and deduced from that that they must graft sub-D&D
mechanics onto them.

Don't get me wrong; I like D&D fine as a tabletop game, but only when the
type of play is appropriate for those mechanics, not simply when those
mechanics are used blindly; and levelling, particularly, is very damaging
to an MMO where it ensures that the vast majority of the player base can't
actually play together.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Aponoia, May.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl>:
>
>
> Don't get me wrong; I like D&D fine as a tabletop game, but only when the
> type of play is appropriate for those mechanics, not simply when those
> mechanics are used blindly; and levelling, particularly, is very damaging
> to an MMO where it ensures that the vast majority of the player base can't
> actually play together.

I sort-of liked the way Hero games did it (and some
further restrictions my group put on the rules...).

Basically, in the hero system, you got normal stats
for free, built a character on 50-150 points depending
on the campaign style (50 or 75 for "agent or
adventurer" types, 100 for semi-gritty superhero
games, 150 for more powerful superheros).

And then you played, taking experience *slowly*.
you got another 1 or 2 character points as experience
every session, and after a 9-month campaign with
weekly meetings, your character was more powerful;
but not in a way that broke the campaign or made
beginning characters completely useless, as in
other games exemplified by D&D.

My particular group had an "active point limit" that
meant you couldn't abuse the character generation
rules to put more than N "active points" in a
particular attack, defense, or movement power. This
meant that experience, mostly, had to go into skills,
maneuvers, knowledge areas and enhanced statistics
and buying off starting disadvantages, etc, that made
your character cooler and more flexible, rather than
just packing a bigger punch.

It worked. There was enough accumulation of power
to keep the characters fresh and developing and
give players goals to work toward, but not so much
that the progression from beginning to experienced
character was a course of repeated exclusion.

Bear

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
> There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
> http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
> http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all
>
> I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
> game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
> problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that their
> motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making good
> games. Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
> have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
> statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are inheritently
> false, it an interesting opinion.
>
> I started coding a roguelike because to me it was basically an RPG, and
> I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that graphics
> make a good game.

I don't have to read it to agree with it . That's why I'm developing
roguelike's after all -- cause they are the essence. Anyway, you might
be also interested in this:
http://www.the-underdogs.org/scratch.php

--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
"11 years and no binary. And it's not vapourware" -- Igor Savin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
> There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
> http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
>
http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all
>
> I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
> game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
> problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that
their
> motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making
good
> games. Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
> have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
> statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are
inheritently
> false, it an interesting opinion.

"Photo-realism" isn't a proper target for game design. Some small
subset of games will work well with photorealism.

I'm looking forward to us hitting photo-realism (whatever that means
anyways!) so people can step back and start making the *look* that they
want. A good and consistent look beats realism any day. We should
know this best: Ascii letters are very much a choice of Look over
Realism.

I think Nintendo's strategy is most interesting. They seem well aware
of the futility of chasing the per-pixel global illuminated scene.
Now, if only they made it possible for micro developers to release on
their platform, I'd be happy.

> I started coding a roguelike because to me it was basically an RPG,
and
> I feel that RPGs are the future of gaming, and don't think that
graphics
> make a good game.

Graphics do make a good game. Photo-Realisitic graphics don't.

Roguelike developers are very much in the "Graphics" camp. If we
weren't, we'd be doing interactive fiction! We largely pick a
simplistic, iconic, look, but that doesn't stop it from being
graphical. Don't forget that the font you use has been carefully
worked over by an artist to make it look good!
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Jim Strathmeyer wrote:
> FPS haven't really changed, and that they
> have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism. Though
> statements such as 'gaming is dead' and 'nowhere to go' are inheritently
> false, it an interesting opinion.

Inherently false indeed -- once the graphics reach photorealism, and the
physics is fairly realistic too, the engine will stabilize and all
they'll have left to compete on is gameplay and price.

As it is, we're seeing some differentiation in FPS games. There's at
least four big subgenres (more than one implemented in some games, but
most games are only excellent in one of them):
1. Multiplayer, teamplay-oriented -- enemy territory etc.
2. Multiplayer, tournament-oriented and free for all -- Quake 3 etc.
3. Single player, kill stuff and get the next key -- quake, doom, etc.
4. Single player, more immersive story and more puzzle elements --
half-life and half-life 2.
Of course there's more games in each category, and some games (e.g.
Quake 1) belong to more than one (categories 2 and 3 in that instance).

There's also time-period differentiation: futuristic (quake, doom);
urban/present/near-future (half-life and half-life 2, far cry, james
bond FPS games, others); fantasy medieval (heretic, hexen, etc.); WW II
(Wolfenstein series)...

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

In article <8eadncA41ctuo-_fRVn-qw@adelphia.com>,
Jim Strathmeyer <strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net> wrote:
>There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
>
>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
>http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
>http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all

You know, that's a really, truly terrible article. It's an opinion
piece with very little insight or research. Basically, he's saying:

1) The only difference he sees between todays games and
yesterday's games, aside from some "stupid tweaks", is that today's
games have better graphics.

2) Therefore, as soon as graphics get a bit better, there will be
nowhere else to go and nobody will want to buy new games anymore.

He then relates how he talked to someone from Nintendo about it.

He does not:

1) Give any details of what he means when he says "stupid tweaks".

2) Tell us what games he looked at.

3) Interview any actual hardcore gamers and ask _them_ if and why
they liked new games better than old ones.

Indeed, I can't find any evidence of research at all beyond that
conversation with the guy from Nintendo. Yeah, there are problems in
the current high-end commercial games industry but I've heard the
discussion before, better done and by more knowledgeable people.

Personally, I think he's out to lunch on both counts.

I sincerely doubt that adequate realism will reach us any time soon.
Yeah, we may get photorealistic graphics in the next five years, but
after that it'll be physics and following that, who knows? Body
language, maybe?

There's a lot more to photorealism than textures and polygons. If you
don't believe me, watch the movie _Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_.
That one has amazing graphics but they keep screwing up little things
(e.g. a person not breathing except when talking, little tics, etc.)
in a way that would jar me out of my suspension of disbelief just
because something looked wrong. They won't have a perfect game engine
until they can fix _that_.

But suppose it turns out that the Doom 4 engine is the be-all and
end-all of video game engines and that nothing can improve upon it,
ever. All that means is that the game companies will have to make
creativity and innovation a priority again. It will certainly shake
things up, but I think that's a good thing.

It will also reduce the price of game development, since everyone will
only need to license an old game engine to get top-notch
graphics. That means it'll be possible for independant developers to
compete head to head with the conglomerates which will, once again,
encourage innovative game design.

Dvorak seems to assume that the (debatable) lack of innovation in
modern games is because we as a civilization have reached the apex of
game design.

Uh huh.


--Chris



--
Chris Reuter http://www.blit.ca
"You think we live in pretty desperate times when people want to go
back to 1975"
--Lard, _70's Rock Must Die_

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl>:
>
>>recall. Nothing changes in MMORPGs -- it's just the experience points
>>and level of your character.
>
> Apart from MMOs like Planetside and Puzzle Pirates that don't have
> levelling.

Well, so why didn't I ever hear about them?

> The term "RPG" is particularly pernicious here. It was bad enough for
> single-player games that got called RPGs because they had sub-D&D
> mechanics; but then people decided to make MMO versions of those games,
> called them MMORPGs, and deduced from that that they must graft sub-D&D
> mechanics onto them.

Very, *very* true.

> Don't get me wrong; I like D&D fine as a tabletop game, but only when the
> type of play is appropriate for those mechanics, not simply when those
> mechanics are used blindly; and levelling, particularly, is very damaging
> to an MMO where it ensures that the vast majority of the player base can't
> actually play together.

I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I think
that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much prefere
more balanced systems as GURPS...

--
At your service,
Kornel Kisielewicz (charonATmagma-net.pl) [http://chaos.magma-net.pl]
My opinions are my own. Share them at your own risk.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Kornel Kisielewicz <kisielewicz@gazeta.pl> wrote:
> I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
> mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
> warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I
> think that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much
> prefere more balanced systems as GURPS...

D&D became popular because of their role playing mechanics. It's a shame
that everyone copies their combat mechanics.

In my opinion, coming up with a new reasonable combat system is not that
difficult. Balancing it, on the other hand...

--
Jim Strathmeyer

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
> I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
> mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
> warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I think
> that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much prefere
> more balanced systems as GURPS...

GURPS?

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Paul Derbyshire wrote:

> Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
>
>> think that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much
>> prefere more balanced systems as GURPS...
>
> GURPS?

<http://www.google.com/search?q=gurps>

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Paul Derbyshire wrote:

> You didn't give me an answer. You said "Go look it up" instead of
> "<insert answer here>".

I pointed you to the answer. Seriously - what's your beef? GURPS is an
absurdly popular gaming system. Tons of stuff has been written about it
- what's the point in repeating it?

> But then I didn't ask *you* did I? I asked the original poster

Not so. You didn't communicate to one person by way of a private media.
You asked a public question of this group.

> have to get in your two pesos worth, don't you, whenever you see an
> opportunity to attack or annoy me!

I saw an opportunity to post a helpful answer to your question. If
helpful answers annoy you, there's not much I can do about that.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>
>> You didn't give me an answer. You said "Go look it up" instead of
>> "<insert answer here>".
>
> I pointed you to the answer. Seriously - what's your beef? GURPS is an
> absurdly popular gaming system. Tons of stuff has been written about it
> - what's the point in repeating it?

To give a quick synopsis? Google can't do that; it can just point
someone to a bunch of sites that might be tangential, might be a quick
synopsos, and might be some highly technical, jump-in-the-deep-end
stuff. How does one know where to begin? Humans are smart enough to
construct a quick synopsis of a subject. Computers, including Google,
are not.

>> But then I didn't ask *you* did I? I asked the original poster
>
> Not so. You didn't communicate to one person by way of a private media.
> You asked a public question of this group.

I followed up to the original poster asking them to elaborate on
something they said. Like asking someone to clarify something in a
conversation, it's assumed you're talking to that person, not
generically to the group, although someone else the group can chime in
-- IF they have anything helpful to contribute, which you clearly do not.

> I saw an opportunity to post a helpful answer to your question. If
> helpful answers annoy you, there's not much I can do about that.

Your problem is your definition of the word "helpful", which is,
apparently, "an answer that leaves someone knowing no more than they did
before".

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Paul Derbyshire wrote:

> Your problem is your definition of the word "helpful", which is,
> apparently, "an answer that leaves someone knowing no more than they did
> before".

Whatever. I answered your question. If you read it you'll learn more
about GURPS, if you ignore it you won't. No skin off my nose either way.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I agree with Jeff Lait, graphics are an important component in a game
experience. However, I would add emphasis on _component_ because there
are many other things that make for a great game experience, such as
responsiveness, control setup, challenge and story. Heck, I'm playing
Sentinel Worlds right now--the graphics are ancient and the interface
clumsy, but it's such a fun game because it is so well written and
immersive.

Back to the article, I think Dvorak completely misses a huge and
blindingly obvious issue: That games nowadays are funded and created
mainly by huge media conglomerates that like formulas and are adverse
to taking risks. Having worked at Activision as a game tester (as a bid
to become a game programmer), I saw firsthand the resources required to
bring modern games to market. They aren't trivial; You need tons of
support. Testing, marketing, publishing, you name it. The creative
studios may be independent on the surface, but in the end they have to
make a sales pitch to get the backing of corps like Activision that
will do the grunt work for them.

Does this mean the PC game industry is doomed to failure? Only if they
have a total stranglehold on the market and disallow underdogs from
getting a foot in. I don't think that's the case (yet). And this is
what I think Dvorak misses: The next PC game renaissance will come from
an underdog that manages to get enough funding to put an innovative and
fun title in the ring. He's focusing too much on the stagnant players
that won't budge.

- Leon Torres

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

[snip]

Quit misattributing me. It's "Twisted One".

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:04:35 -0500,
strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) wrote:

>There's an article by John Dvorak about how computer gaming is dead:
>
>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784975,00.asp
>http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/29/1145204
>http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=othergames&Number=829228&page=0&fpart=all
>
>I find his opinion interesting (though he has nothing to do with the
>game industry) and agree with him on many points. I have a lot of
>problems with the current state of the game industry and feel that their
>motivation is to make a game that sells well, as opposed to making good
>games.

Actually, I've just seen that occurr in large businesses like EA (among
others.) They generally drive known quality games into the ground,
resulting in stagnation.

The smaller development companies can release fun games, but won't have the
depth that could be made by larger companies. (snort)

> Dvorak describes how FPS haven't really changed, and that they
>have nowhere to go once the graphics reach photorealism.

That may be true, but there are only so many ways to write an FPS. How
many variations of forward-firing weapons can you create before they look
obviously similar? In any case, FPS games can still be considred well-done
when they are properly written: Team Fortress is one example, where maps
can be made to simulate any objective system used in another game. (e.g.
capture and hold command points as in Firearms, classic CTF and a few
variants, VIP protection, etc.)

The RTS genre, on the other hand, has already stagnated. You can tell if
you note common interface flaws that get copied from game to game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:47:30 GMT, Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:

>David Damerell wrote:
[...]
>
>And then you played, taking experience *slowly*.
>you got another 1 or 2 character points as experience
>every session, and after a 9-month campaign with
>weekly meetings, your character was more powerful;
>but not in a way that broke the campaign or made
>beginning characters completely useless, as in
>other games exemplified by D&D.

The D&D game system had useless beginning characters because they gained
experience slowly - either by collecting treasures or killing monsters.
(3rd edition does change this slightly, but 1st and 2nd seem to revolve
around this.)

This could be worked around by allowing forms of training - a wealthy
beginning character could easily hire trainers and become 5th or 6th level
without dangerous combat. This might unbalance the game, but shifts the
weakness of beginning characters over to "green" characters.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:36:32 -0400, Twisted One <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid>
wrote:

>Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
>> I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
>> mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
>> warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I think
>> that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much prefere
>> more balanced systems as GURPS...
>
>GURPS?

Generic Universal Role Playing System. From my knowledge of it, it's
inteded to create fairly detailed universes in a specific campaign (a base
ruleset, combined with an expansion), with characters created using a point
based system. I think there might be attributes involved, but I'm not
sure.

I haven't used it personally, only peeked at some expansion books.

As with most point-based RPG systems, it's easy to tell which combinatiosn
generally result in an ultra-powerful character, based on the ones that say
that they should only be used with the GM's consent. Naturally, the GM
will create a combat munchkin that fights against "regular" characters.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Raymond Martineau wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:36:32 -0400, Twisted One <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
>>
>>>I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
>>>mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st level
>>>warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the brest". I think
>>>that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I far much prefere
>>>more balanced systems as GURPS...
>>
>>GURPS?
>
> Generic Universal Role Playing System. From my knowledge of it, it's
> inteded to create fairly detailed universes in a specific campaign (a base
> ruleset, combined with an expansion), with characters created using a point
> based system. I think there might be attributes involved, but I'm not
> sure.

Thanks. How is it more balanced than D&D though?

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Leon Torres wrote:
> The next PC game renaissance will come from
> an underdog that manages to get enough funding to put an innovative and
> fun title in the ring. He's focusing too much on the stagnant players
> that won't budge.

Previous ones did, too -- in one case, the underdog was named "id
Software" ...

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Twisted One <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote in
news:cbadnRSu0YbWnO7fRVn-pQ@rogers.com:

> Raymond Martineau wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:36:32 -0400, Twisted One
>> <twisted0n3@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't like DnD even as a tabletop game. I hate those leveling
>>>>mechanics that make one 50th level warrior take on hordes of 1st
>>>>level warriors, and be able to take an artillery shot "on the
>>>>brest". I think that such mechanics actually destroy roleplaying. I
>>>>far much prefere more balanced systems as GURPS...
>>>
>>>GURPS?
>>
>> Generic Universal Role Playing System. From my knowledge of it, it's
>> inteded to create fairly detailed universes in a specific campaign (a
>> base ruleset, combined with an expansion), with characters created
>> using a point based system. I think there might be attributes
>> involved, but I'm not sure.
>
> Thanks. How is it more balanced than D&D though?
>

Well, it's almost impossible NOT be more balanced than 2e D&D. On the
other hand, GURPS isn't terrible balanced on its own merits, although the
newest version is a sizable improvement.