What Does It Mean To Player Character?

[Dirty Hipsters]

FF6 is from 1994. Yes, the AI in a 25 year old game is basically non-existent, what's your point?

I wouldn't look to something like Final Fantasy for an example of what is or isn't good AI anyway.

If a game isn't reacting to what the player is doing, and actively trying to counter it then the AI it's running isn't good, and if the game's enemies just use random number generators to determine what their attacks are then the AI isn't just bad, it's nonexistent because there isn't any intelligence in the design if the enemies are just things at random.

JRPGs evolve at a snail's pace though. I tried FF6, didn't like it, then I figured I'd try FF10, it was the same fucking game from a gameplay perspective (and worse in some regards). Even FF12 was the same battle system, just automated. Just about any JRPG doesn't react to what the player is doing. I really liked Xenosaga 2's battle system but the AI would never do to you what you did to it (knock enemies up/down), same thing with Resonance of Fate.

Just because the AI in Final Fantasy is bad (which is something that no one will argue or defend) doesn't mean that the AI in Gloomhaven is therefore good.

A random number generator is not a replacement for depth.

 

[CaitSeith]

You move the enemies based on the rules of the game

As you do in any other tabletop game. That ain't AI. That's the player following the rules; and nothing stops them from breaking them.

And the video game for Gloomhaven [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFw_CBYWN4A] comes out this week and the enemies move themselves.

But then it no longer counts as a tabletop game, but as a videogame.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Just because the AI in Final Fantasy is bad (which is something that no one will argue or defend) doesn't mean that the AI in Gloomhaven is therefore good.

A random number generator is not a replacement for depth.

I mentioned other games than just FF, the genre itself evolves at a snail's pace. Having enemies move is better than the "classic" JRPG, which they still make like Octopath for example. All I said was Gloomhaven AI was more advanced than the "classic" JRPG because the enemies move, not that it's the best AI ever or anything. Most AI does have randomness to it or the game wouldn't be replayable at all as you would know what the enemy was going to do every turn (after playing the fight just once).

You move the enemies based on the rules of the game

As you do in any other tabletop game. That ain't AI. That's the player following the rules; and nothing stops them from breaking them.

And the video game for Gloomhaven [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFw_CBYWN4A] comes out this week and the enemies move themselves.

But then it no longer counts as a tabletop game, but as a videogame.

Most tabletop games have a player playing as the enemy and basically deciding everything like DnD. All AI is just comprised of rules. FF12 let you create you own AI for your characters with basic If-Then-Else statements (aka rules).

Games are games in my book. When both versions of the game have the exact same rule-set, they're the same game.

 

[CaitSeith]

Just because the AI in Final Fantasy is bad (which is something that no one will argue or defend) doesn't mean that the AI in Gloomhaven is therefore good.

A random number generator is not a replacement for depth.

I mentioned other games than just FF, the genre itself evolves at a snail's pace.

And you know why? Because as long as it offers more of what made them popular in the first place, it doesn't need to.

Games are games in my book. When both versions of the game have the exact same rule-set, they're the same game.

Replacing the player in charge of moving the pieces with a piece of hardware connected to a monitor is a change in rule-set.

 

[Erttheking]

I have never seen someone on a gaming website who seems to dislike video games so much.

 

[Yoshi178]

I have never seen someone on a gaming website who seems to dislike video games so much.

yeah. why not just go play an ACTUAL board game instead? why even play video games? lol

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Just because the AI in Final Fantasy is bad (which is something that no one will argue or defend) doesn't mean that the AI in Gloomhaven is therefore good.

A random number generator is not a replacement for depth.

I mentioned other games than just FF, the genre itself evolves at a snail's pace.

And you know why? Because as long as it offers more of what made them popular in the first place, it doesn't need to.

Games are games in my book. When both versions of the game have the exact same rule-set, they're the same game.

Replacing the player in charge of moving the pieces with a piece of hardware connected to a monitor is a change in rule-set.

And, JRPGs becoming niche has nothing to do with them evolving at a snail's pace and stagnating?

There is no player in charge of moving the pieces, any player can move the enemies based on the rules. Those rules are exactly the same whether you're playing the board game or the video game. The game tells you exactly where an enemy should move and you just have to physically move their marker to the right hex whereas the video game does it for you because it obviously can.

I have never seen someone on a gaming website who seems to dislike video games so much.

yeah. why not just go play an ACTUAL board game instead? why even play video games? lol

I play board games at least twice a week. I haven't booted up a video game in about 3-4 months. Sorry I don't jizz my pants over a new character (Banjo and Kazooie) being added to a 20-year old game (Smash Bros). I prefer NEW and DIFFERENT games vs playing the same thing with a new coat of paint.

Here's a picture added today in the Asmodee Demo Team Facebook group as GenCon is right around the corner

What new video games would actually fit that picture? Every new game is just something you already played slightly tweaked or with this or that element from XYZ game. Zelda BotW is just Zelda with Ubisoft elements (systemic game elements and an open world). Cyberpunk is just CDPR trying to do Deus Ex. Video games can be so much better than they are and the stagnation is so very bad. Games are my hobby and I'm going to play the better games regardless of where they're at. The RE2 Remake plays quite uniquely for what modern games play like (as in you have to figure out how to actually progress yourself, there's no markers telling you where to go or how to complete the rather simple puzzles for example) and it's a fucking remake of a game from 20+ years ago, that pretty much says everything.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

With all due respect, I find your criticisms to be shallow, it's basically the whole "it's unoriginal trash if anyone ever did it before."

I'd like to know what makes Gloomhaven so original to spare it from this same critical eye. Because I very much doubt that it didn't use an idea that wasn't utilized in some form or manner in the last twenty years. It's a tactical RPG with deck building, hardly groundbreaking.

Again, I've never seen someone on a gaming website hate video games this much. I love a good board game as much as the next person, but a board game will always be niche to me compared to video games because of the lack of compelling story and atmosphere. A board game can't do horror, no one is actually scared while playing Arkham Horror, not the way they can be with Subnatica or Darkwood, it can't form emotional connections the way a good story can like in Crosscode or New Vegas can, it can't have extensive world-building the war Sunless Sea/Skies or Cultist Simulator can. If you like board games more than video games, fine. But, again, I find the critique of games you have to be unbearably shallow.

 

[Casual Shinji]

With all due respect, I find your criticisms to be shallow, it's basically the whole "it's unoriginal trash if anyone ever did it before."

No, you got it wrong, it's "unoriginal trash unless I say so, even when I haven't even played it". Sometimes followed by "I might even like it, but it's still trash because it's not a boardgame."

 

[CaitSeith]

Just because the AI in Final Fantasy is bad (which is something that no one will argue or defend) doesn't mean that the AI in Gloomhaven is therefore good.

A random number generator is not a replacement for depth.

I mentioned other games than just FF, the genre itself evolves at a snail's pace.

And you know why? Because as long as it offers more of what made them popular in the first place, it doesn't need to.

Games are games in my book. When both versions of the game have the exact same rule-set, they're the same game.

Replacing the player in charge of moving the pieces with a piece of hardware connected to a monitor is a change in rule-set.

And, JRPGs becoming niche has nothing to do with them evolving at a snail's pace and stagnating?

Better fate than the genre disappearing from the AA and AAA industries because "evolving" just meant replacing the mechanics that made them popular with those from popular mainstream games (like how it happened with Survival Horror in the previous generation).

 

[BrawlMan]

Phoenixmgs, I am going to be straight with you, but it seems like you can't seem to enjoy anything or set your standards impossibly high. I am fustrated with the AAA industry as well, but that does not mean I am going to give up on gaming altogether nor look down on other games for not being "unique" or different enough. It's the same problem you have when talking about the Switch. Play whatever you like, but don't act like your better than everyone else for it. Or act as if you're the smartest person in the room, or someone who has to be in the "out" crowd. Otherwise, you get people like this:

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What new video games would actually fit that picture?

With all due respect, I find your criticisms to be shallow, it's basically the whole "it's unoriginal trash if anyone ever did it before."

I'd like to know what makes Gloomhaven so original to spare it from this same critical eye. Because I very much doubt that it didn't use an idea that wasn't utilized in some form or manner in the last twenty years. It's a tactical RPG with deck building, hardly groundbreaking.

Again, I've never seen someone on a gaming website hate video games this much. I love a good board game as much as the next person, but a board game will always be niche to me compared to video games because of the lack of compelling story and atmosphere. A board game can't do horror, no one is actually scared while playing Arkham Horror, not the way they can be with Subnatica or Darkwood, it can't form emotional connections the way a good story can like in Crosscode or New Vegas can, it can't have extensive world-building the war Sunless Sea/Skies or Cultist Simulator can. If you like board games more than video games, fine. But, again, I find the critique of games you have to be unbearably shallow.

it's "unoriginal trash unless I say so, even when I haven't even played it". Sometimes followed by "I might even like it, but it's still trash because it's not a boardgame."

You guys misinterpreted my question I posed and the point of asking said question. Don't you think there's a problem with knowing how basically every video game plays before you get your hands on it? Isn't it awesome to play something completely new that you had no idea that you'd love? I never said that if a game isn't completely fresh and original, it sucks. My point was the stagnation of game design currently. When you have such stagnation, a game does have to be really well executed to be worth playing. Like what's the point of playing say BFV when other BFs are better games along with many better multiplayer shooters from years ago? Cyberpunk could be a great game but if it's not on par with Deus Ex or better, it'll feel disappointing rather than new and interesting if it was original. The latest Deus Ex games suffered the same problem of being lesser games than the original.

Mark Brown's latest video that he literally posted today is specifically asking the same questions that I'm asking with regards to RPGs and the original point of the thread. Video game devs take the easy way out in designing just about every game whether it's RPGs focusing on combat vs role-playing or Spiderman using generic as hell mission design that doesn't do justice to the tight, fun core gameplay or Sekiro cribbing Souls design when it should be it's own game. Video games can be so much better than they are and we're in a stagnation of continually polishing what we already have instead coming up with new things.

Better fate than the genre disappearing from the AA and AAA industries because "evolving" just meant replacing the mechanics that made them popular with those from popular mainstream games (like how it happened with Survival Horror in the previous generation).

Sure, the genre keeps its current hardcore base making super similar games but once that base is gone (due to just growing old to eventually tiring of the formula to not having the time, etc.), you end up with nothing because you didn't pull in any new fans to "replace" the old ones.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Phoenixmgs, I am going to be straight with you, but it seems like you can't seem to enjoy anything or set your standards impossibly high. I am fustrated with the AAA industry as well, but that does not mean I am going to give up on gaming altogether nor look down on other games for not being "unique" or different enough. It's the same problem you have when talking about the Switch. Play whatever you like, but don't act like your better than everyone else for it. Or act as if you're the smartest person in the room, or someone who has to be in the "out" crowd. Otherwise, you get people like this:

I hope my post just above clears up most things. It's not that every game is trash and there's nothing good. It's that things could be so much better if devs didn't rest on their laurels basically. The best games we get are usually slightly better polished things that we already played, which can still be great games and worth playing, but we could be doing so much better than that.

 

[Erttheking]

You guys misinterpreted my question I posed and the point of asking said question. Don't you think there's a problem with knowing how basically every video game plays before you get your hands on it?

I understood what you were saying, I simply disagree with it. And I find this statement to be a gross oversimplification. I'm familiar with the genres of gaming and accepted conventions, that doesn't mean I know what the entire game is going to be. I just got 40k Mechanicus from the Humble Bundle and it's got elements of XCOM, but enough new ideas to make it fresh. Frankly, I think you're getting tunnel vision in the AAA industry.

What can I say, I'm not the type of person who demands for constant innovation, and I think variations on existing ideas can be highly enjoyable. Sekiro has more than enough new ideas in it to make it its own game, even though it's clearly part of the Dark Souls family. I actually enjoy Bloodborne more because of the changes to the formula it made.

And this is without getting into independent games, which bring an ungodly amount to the table. Technically Darkwood and Subnatica are both crafting survival games, but both have such creative and unique takes on the genre (Subnatica through a fully realized and developed underwater ecosystem, Darkwood through being a neverending nightmare) that they deliver experiences you just can't find anywhere else.

 

[BrawlMan]

I hope my post just above clears up most things. It's not that every game is trash and there's nothing good. It's that things could be so much better if devs didn't rest on their laurels basically. The best games we get are usually slightly better polished things that we already played, which can still be great games and worth playing, but we could be doing so much better than that.

There are many things that can definitely be better in the industry; not just the AAA. But not everything should be judged on what it should have done, instead of whatever the product was going for. Now, nothing is immune to criticism, and it's great to implement ideas a dev could not before hand due to whatever constraints, yet it is always important to keep on open mind. Companies like EA, Activision-Blizz, Ubisoft, and 2K, they is not much you can do other than not by their products spread awareness of their schemes. There is always something out there, you're just going to have to find it. Once you do, spread it to others, so they can enjoy. Hell, if you need advice on what to play, feel free to ask me now or PM me. I can please everything on what you want, but give these games of chance. There are plenty of unique games out in the world, just don't rely on the AAA industry all the time to make them for you. This is not before 2010 any more. Resting on laurels is not necessarily a bad thing, if handled right. And making something different for the sake of "innovation and new" does not always lead to the best path. There has to be a balance.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You guys misinterpreted my question I posed and the point of asking said question. Don't you think there's a problem with knowing how basically every video game plays before you get your hands on it? Isn't it awesome to play something completely new that you had no idea that you'd love? I never said that if a game isn't completely fresh and original, it sucks. My point was the stagnation of game design currently. When you have such stagnation, a game does have to be really well executed to be worth playing.

When has this ever NOT been the case? When have videogames been an explosion of unique creativity where every game was something totally new? Pretty much never. If it was the concept of genres wouldn't even exist in the medium.

Games have always built on pre existing ideas. And as long has it manages to craft its own identity I really don't see the problem with it. That's why Uncharted isn't Dude Raider, and why Breath of the Wild and Horizon: Zero Dawn aren't Ubisoft's Far Cry.

Yes, obviously we need to make sure to try new things, but even those new things can need multiple iterations to actually get the formula right. And sometimes it even sacrifices overall enjoyment by creating unique gameplay mechanics, like with Gravity Rush. Or sometimes it completely dicks up its controls almost all together, like with The Last Guardian.

If you want to focus all your attention on what could be better, instead of spending some of it looking at what's actually good right now, that's your right. But don't be shocked when other people find this attitude extremely exhausting.

 

[CaitSeith]

Better fate than the genre disappearing from the AA and AAA industries because "evolving" just meant replacing the mechanics that made them popular with those from popular mainstream games (like how it happened with Survival Horror in the previous generation).

Sure, the genre keeps its current hardcore base making super similar games but once that base is gone (due to just growing old to eventually tiring of the formula to not having the time, etc.), you end up with nothing because you didn't pull in any new fans to "replace" the old ones.

Now you're just hypothesizing bullshit.

EDIT: What attracted the current hardcore base is bound to attract other people (specially those who have grown tired of the trending popular formula and wish to try something different). New games have added some features (like being able to save far more frequently, fast-travel, etc) that makes easier to start and stop playing; making play sessions short enough for people without a lot of time; while the mechanics are basically the same. This doesn't apply just to JRPGs, but to other genres as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSLMjJJgFyg

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I understood what you were saying, I simply disagree with it. And I find this statement to be a gross oversimplification. I'm familiar with the genres of gaming and accepted conventions, that doesn't mean I know what the entire game is going to be. I just got 40k Mechanicus from the Humble Bundle and it's got elements of XCOM, but enough new ideas to make it fresh. Frankly, I think you're getting tunnel vision in the AAA industry.

What can I say, I'm not the type of person who demands for constant innovation, and I think variations on existing ideas can be highly enjoyable. Sekiro has more than enough new ideas in it to make it its own game, even though it's clearly part of the Dark Souls family. I actually enjoy Bloodborne more because of the changes to the formula it made.

And this is without getting into independent games, which bring an ungodly amount to the table. Technically Darkwood and Subnatica are both crafting survival games, but both have such creative and unique takes on the genre (Subnatica through a fully realized and developed underwater ecosystem, Darkwood through being a neverending nightmare) that they deliver experiences you just can't find anywhere else.

I'm definitely tunneling a bit towards AAA, but I've played a decent amount from the non-AAA scene like a Divinity, Shadow Tactics, Invisible Inc. and such. But indie games fall into stagnation to with 2D Souls games, roguelikes, Souls roguelikes, survival games.

Sekiro has a great core game to it but the problem is it used Souls game design for like everything else and it doesn't fit the game. Why can't Sekiro just be Sekiro instead of borrowing so many Souls' elements. Bloodborne is the best Souls game because it basically removes stuff that doesn't work in Souls. That's mainly what I'm talking about with game design, the only things in any game should be elements that enhance the game's core. Whereas so many games have elements that dilute the core game. Another super recent example is the new game Judgment (from the Yakuza devs), which is basically a Yakuza game with Yahtzee's review saying how he wished the detective gameplay was done much better. Why can't Judgment just be a detective game?

There are many things that can definitely be better in the industry; not just the AAA. But not everything should be judged on what it should have done, instead of whatever the product was going for. Now, nothing is immune to criticism, and it's great to implement ideas a dev could not before hand due to whatever constraints, yet it is always important to keep on open mind. Companies like EA, Activision-Blizz, Ubisoft, and 2K, they is not much you can do other than not by their products spread awareness of their schemes. There is always something out there, you're just going to have to find it. Once you do, spread it to others, so they can enjoy. Hell, if you need advice on what to play, feel free to ask me now or PM me. I can please everything on what you want, but give these games of chance. There are plenty of unique games out in the world, just don't rely on the AAA industry all the time to make them for you. This is not before 2010 any more. Resting on laurels is not necessarily a bad thing, if handled right. And making something different for the sake of "innovation and new" does not always lead to the best path. There has to be a balance.

I'm not very good at knowing what I want until I see it basically. Like I couldn't tell you I wanted Legion or Big Little Lies beforehand, but I love both shows. Same with my favorite show being Firefly, I hate westerns and I'm really iffy on sci-fi. And games are more than just subject matter, it's mechanics too. I thought I hated deck-builders until a few games incorporated the mechanic differently. I do really want to play Return of the Obra Dinn but was hoping for an eventual console port. I guess games that don't focus on combat and that aren't survival games would be generally what I'd want in theory. I'm hoping that new Ghostwire game has like no combat. Games don't have to fallback on killing 100s of enemies to be great games, combat should like never be the main content of an RPG (yet it is for so many).

When has this ever NOT been the case? When have videogames been an explosion of unique creativity where every game was something totally new? Pretty much never. If it was the concept of genres wouldn't even exist in the medium.

Games have always built on pre existing ideas. And as long has it manages to craft its own identity I really don't see the problem with it. That's why Uncharted isn't Dude Raider, and why Breath of the Wild and Horizon: Zero Dawn aren't Ubisoft's Far Cry.

Yes, obviously we need to make sure to try new things, but even those new things can need multiple iterations to actually get the formula right. And sometimes it even sacrifices overall enjoyment by creating unique gameplay mechanics, like with Gravity Rush. Or sometimes it completely dicks up its controls almost all together, like with The Last Guardian.

If you want to focus all your attention on what could be better, instead of spending some of it looking at what's actually good right now, that's your right. But don't be shocked when other people find this attitude extremely exhausting.

Again, I'm not saying every game but innovation is probably the lowest it's ever been. Just look at how varied and diverse the golden age of TV is compared to video games right now where it used to be an endless parade of sitcoms, cop shows / procedurals, reality TV, etc. That's where video games are now endless parade of open world, battle royale, live services, MMS from last-gen, etc.

Now you're just hypothesizing bullshit.

EDIT: What attracted the current hardcore base is bound to attract other people (specially those who have grown tired of the trending popular formula and wish to try something different). New games have added some features (like being able to save far more frequently, fast-travel, etc) that makes easier to start and stop playing; making play sessions short enough for people without a lot of time; while the mechanics are basically the same. This doesn't apply just to JRPGs, but to other genres as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSLMjJJgFyg

I totally agree with only having gameplay elements that enhance the core game, I've said that numerous times and above in this post. The problem with JRPGs is that they rarely fix or improve their core mechanics. I would love a JRPG that doesn't have shit turn-based combat, I love good turned-based combat. The point of turn-based combat is that it's supposed to be so strategic that you need time to think but few JRPGs are strategic because there's no positioning involved. Why isn't there a JRPG with elemental interactions like Divinity? Systemic game elements enhance basically every genre of games, even Zelda finally incorporated that kind of stuff. Or how long it took JRPGs to give up on random battles (which only ever were a thing originally due to hardware limitations) yet it took forever for DQ to finally give up on that bullshit. Something like Valkyria Chronicles or Resonance of Fate is as much a core JRPG as a "classic" JRPG like a DQ game, neither have elements that stray from the core anymore than a DQ game. When you do literally the exact same shit for so long, it ain't good.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Again, I'm not saying every game but innovation is probably the lowest it's ever been. Just look at how varied and diverse the golden age of TV is compared to video games right now where it used to be an endless parade of sitcoms, cop shows / procedurals, reality TV, etc. That's where video games are now endless parade of open world, battle royale, live services, MMS from last-gen, etc.

The golden age of television varied and diverse? By what measure? All of the critically acclaimed TV shows are either about anti-heroes, over-stuffed with nudity and shock value, or banking on 80's nostalgia, or all three. A lot of these shows are really good, but nearly all of them follow a very clear formula to success, just like videogames. Name me one show from the golden age that did something truly different, and wasn't just a more shocking version, a less romanticized version, or a deconstruction of something we'd already seen. And reality TV is still all over the fucking place. It's pretty much completely taken over The Discovery Channel and National Geographic, among many others.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Most games are technically just variations on rock paper scissors, just with varying levels of complexity to obscure that fact.

There are also only 7 stories in the world.

Nothing is unique therefore everything sucks.

Gloomhaven is just Munchkin but grimdark.