Doom vs. Hexen?

Heretic
I loved the graphics, even though a lot of them were kinda bright. The weapons were sort of meh, but the macewand and ToP makes up for that. The enemies ruled, especialy the ones you meet later on. Also, cool things like flying and ambient noises and waters splashes made it really neat. The best thing in my opinion was the level design. Much of it probably didn't make much sense, but it was very good and tended to drag you into it, like Episode 2 of Doom.

Hexen
The architecture is excellent, the weapons kick ass (though there are too few), and the design is pretty involving (I think I almost pissed my pants on Guardian of Steel a couple times). But unfortunately, a lot of the enemies annoyed me (especialy since there are so damned much), and the puzzles are way too much of a headache. It took me forever to find all the switches in the first hub (and I accidently stumbled into the secret level in the process), I had to look at a walktrhough just to find the cave key in the second hub, and now I'm stuck in the third hub with like all these gems and none of them will fit in the weird thing that looks like where they're supposed to go. Darkmere kicks total ass though.

Hexen 2
I actualy kinda like this more than Hexen. The puzzles actualy make sense (find the bones of Loric, find the mill key, unlock the mill with the key and grind the bones there, then use the bones to make a potion etc., as opposed to finding 30 switches and four keys spread across eight levels or whatever), and the weapons are pretty cool (though still in short supply). The level design is great and very realistic...I especialy like the shops in the 2nd hub (I think its the second...Blackmarsh-Barbican area is kind of its own hub even though you can go back). As opposed to what everyone else says, I find it very easy. So what if the spiders are a bitch in the beginning? Soon enough, you'll get the second weapon and they won't be a problem anymore. :P Even the golems, who are pretty powerful are easy. They are slow enough that they aren't a problem, like the tanks on Quake 2. And as for the puzzles, they are almost laughably easy, and would probably suck if they weren't fun. Sometimes those notes you find laying around are so damn obvious: "I shall escape the gillitine by breaking the stained glass behind it...yes because there is stuff behind that glass...why are you still reading...go break the damn stained glass you fool. Yes you! Go you idiot!". Heh...well not that obvious, but you get the picture.

GooberMan said:

heh, the little backstory involved the universe being contained within some sort of bubble and some moron flying through the bubble and sealing it just after he realised he fucked up but not before three powerful demons came through (guess who), so I doubt we'd see the Serpent Riders again.

Uh? Where's the logic in that claim?
You just described the origin of the Serpent Riders, but nothing there to support your claim that they won't return.

I haven't tried Portal of Praevus (the HeXen 2 mission pack) itself, but I got Ichor to tell me what the end message is after you beat the game.

PoP involves some evil mage who has found three spheres containing the life essence of the Serpent Riders - all three of them (dunno how he got them). When you beat Praevus (the bad guy), there's a text message that explains that the three souls of the Serpent Riders are unleashed and iirc it bids the question "Is this the last that the Universe will see of the dreaded Serpent Riders? Only time will tell..."
And since they're powerful demon lords and not ordinary mortals, I have grounds to believe that they could return again.

I actualy kinda like this more than Hexen. The puzzles actualy make sense (find the bones of Loric, find the mill key, unlock the mill with the key and grind the bones there, then use the bones to make a potion etc., as opposed to finding 30 switches and four keys spread across eight levels or whatever), and the weapons are pretty cool (though still in short supply). The level design is great and very realistic...I especialy like the shops in the 2nd hub (I think its the second...Blackmarsh-Barbican area is kind of its own hub even though you can go back). As opposed to what everyone else says, I find it very easy. So what if the spiders are a bitch in the beginning? Soon enough, you'll get the second weapon and they won't be a problem anymore. :P Even the golems, who are pretty powerful are easy. They are slow enough that they aren't a problem, like the tanks on Quake 2. And as for the puzzles, they are almost laughably easy, and would probably suck if they weren't fun. Sometimes those notes you find laying around are so damn obvious: "I shall escape the gillitine by breaking the stained glass behind it...yes because there is stuff behind that glass...why are you still reading...go break the damn stained glass you fool. Yes you! Go you idiot!". Heh...well not that obvious, but you get the picture.

Yes, HeXen 2 has better puzzles.

Ok, so now I have at last tried the full version of Hexen 2 and I gotta admit that I've been a fool, for I have judged the game from a demo which does not work as well as the full game.

1. The spiders have turned out to be nowhere as annoying as in the demo - it's a mere child's play to kill them now even with the pathetic starting weapon.
2. At least the Paladin's Vorpal sword seems a little more powerful now than in the demo.

Still, I think HeXen 2 is a bit more dull than HeXen 1 - and that's not as much because of fewer enemies, but somehow, killing the enemies in HeXen 2 is not as messy and satisfying as in HeXen 1 (the sounds when killing enemies aren't nearly as great), but the puzzles are better albeit still a bit too much for my taste.

I played the Blackmarsh hub for about an hour before I said "screw it!" and found a walkthrough on the net - I do not want to waste time running confused around in areas that I have cleared already, when killing monsters is so much more fun.

After beating the Hexen games on my own, I've never, ever, needed another walkthrough or even a fucking map in my games, no matter how chaotic or surrealistic a level might be.

dsm said:

Uh? Where's the logic in that claim?
You just described the origin of the Serpent Riders, but nothing there to support your claim that they won't return.

It'd be pretty typical cliche sequel-ish if they have some other moron not learning from original moron's mistakes and letting more through. Raven aren't that bad - yet...

It's possible that they could create a fourth Serpent Rider, one that was not seen escaping that dark realm, and (of course) more powerful than the other three.

Ichor said:

It's possible that they could create a fourth Serpent Rider, one that was not seen escaping that dark realm, and (of course) more powerful than the other three.

I keep daydreaming of something like that.

Ichor said:

It's possible that they could create a fourth Serpent Rider, one that was not seen escaping that dark realm, and (of course) more powerful than the other three.

That's even worse than breaking the bubble again :P

I can't remember why the Serpent Riders couldn't break the bubble themselves... but if they were to find a way that could cause some more Serpent Riders to wreak havoc, but on the flipside to that why should only one or two come out? Even if the Serpent Rider did it in secrecy, secrets never last so you'd have a whole tidal wave of Serpent Riders coming out...

And then there's the whole untouched sci-fi element of the series. Someone was able to travel through space to breach the bubble in the first place. A sci-fi Hexen style game would be rather interesting to say the least - especially if the fantasy-style enemies were given a sci-fi twist. Future-medieval is a nice idea that's very rarely touched.

GooberMan said:

It'd be pretty typical cliche sequel-ish if they have some other moron not learning from original moron's mistakes and letting more through. Raven aren't that bad - yet...

Again you're missing the point!
The three souls were released (because Praevus was killed so he could no longer keep them trapped), the remnants of the Serpent Riders' forces are still out there somewhere.

Logical follow-up - some former servants of the three demons travel the universe thin in search of a way to allow the souls of their masters to reclaim their former powers and return once more.

A single demon - once a servant in the armies of the Serpent Riders - gathers the scattered remnants of the Serpent Riders' armies (there are not that many left) and finds a way to grant his masters the ability to control their creations and even summon/create more terrors until the Serpent Riders have found a method to regain a physical form.

There does not have to be "another moron who repeats a former moron's mistake" - but the Serpent Riders simply aren't that easy to completely wipe out.

Doom > Heretic > Hexen for me. Doom is simply unassailable, Heretic is a very very good game and Hexen is also very good.

dsm said:

Again you're missing the point!
The three souls were released (because Praevus was killed so he could no longer keep them trapped), the remnants of the Serpent Riders' forces are still out there somewhere.

So you're thinking that the basic plot of Portals Of Praevus should be remade into a fully fledged game. Perhaps you've missed my point that repeating plotlines and cliched sequels suck.

Ok. I stopped reading a bunch of posts up cause you all see to write the same thing over and over and .. I really like hexen, but that is not puzzels. It's a hunt for switches that are put in places that is hell to find. You don't need to think , you just need to find the secrets. Hexen 2 was an awful game, I never got through the egypt hub, not to mention it had a bug with the chaos device, causing you to spawn in a place of the map not explored yet, and hence making you get stuck.

The egypt hub I ran around looking for the next hidden pot or whatever it was I were supposed to smash and after running through the maps I had uncovered about 100 times each I decided it wasn't worth it, since it was just a waste of time. I wasn't enjoying myself the least and I didn't even like the game when I did get somewhere.

Now, about the respawning ettings, in Hexen I was exstatic everytime one would respawn I finally had something to kill again.. it got awfully lonely in it after a while.. my favorit hub is defenitely the one where you are on the graveyard and fight your own masters, as it was the one with the most action and the most intresting puzzels.. as it actually had something you could call puzzels.. (instead of hunting a bunch of books for a bookshelf or a cogs for a clock).

Oh btw, calling Hexen anything close to a RPG (even Korax Mod2) is an awful strech of the term RPG.. (specially since it don't have any RPG elements whatsoever)

kristus said:

Hexen 2 was an awful game,

The thing I really disliked about it was the use of historically based mythology for the monsters, and the historically based environments. The first hub wasn't that bad, but then as you saw the whole game was going to have a historic theme I lost interest. Maybe the Aztec part wasn't that bad, but still... As I was saying, this "historical" theme made me think of the standard an unimaginative add-ons for tabletop RPGs closely resembling historic places and times but otherwise changing the maps, characters and names (though most of the the names sound like historical names but are just cheap alikes.) Hexen was nothing like that, it had it's own unique feel and look... one of the blessings of more limited engines is often their incapacity of mimicking things.

kristus said:

Oh btw, calling Hexen anything close to a RPG (even Korax Mod2) is an awful strech of the term RPG.. (specially since it don't have any RPG elements whatsoever)

But having classes, an inventory, a more developed ingame storyline and a fantasy setting, it sure does play a lot with the idea of the RPG. Actually, all FPSs do so to a degree. It occurred to me, and I noted it on another thread, that the FPS gerne owes heavily to RPGs (and we can see direct AD&D influences in DOOM.)

Traditionally RPGs are groups of characters exploring areas (like the FPS maps) with hostile creatures and dangerous traps they have to defeat or avoid. They go about picking up magical items and other goods. Hexen has little of character development (as in levels of power or experience) although items acquisition does give an idea of that, particularly with the 4th weapon. Other than that, it's pretty much like an early RPG, where interaction with the world outside the "dungeon" was scarce if it existed at all. Of course, to call it an RPG in a way you have to be playing on cooperative mode.

By the way, I've always felt that FPS with "experience levels" are stupid... your skill is already defined by your ability as a player, computer games are much more interactive that paper and pencil games, with actual physical input, so adding an experience acquisition system is both redundant and silly. You might as well just hand out powers with items gained, as usual...

Hexen is not like the newer batch of RPGs that are pure character interaction and development, with all sorts of situations, but yes it is like the older type of RPG, often derogatorily called "roll-playing" or "hack n' slash gaming."

Yay, an RPG discussion.

The best way to transfer the idea of experience gaining to a computer game is to ditch it and replace it with something completely different. There are plenty of opportunities for the developer to show the character learning a new skill.

If anyones played Shenmue, they know that every now and then someone teaches Ryo a new move. They show him the move, give him some instruction and then its up to you to work out which buttons to press to pull it off. When you work it out, you get sent on with a pat on the back, and from then on you have to practice that move when sparring or fighting for real to develop it further.

The point I'm making is that rather than putting all the moves on some table that you can choose from when you "level up", the developers have decided to flesh it out more. This is what all "RPG's" should be like, theres no excuse to keep dragging out a 30 year old system that was designed purely for quick and easy tabletop playing.

Whe...where am I?

kristus said:

Oh btw, calling Hexen anything close to a RPG (even Korax Mod2) is an awful strech of the term RPG.. (specially since it don't have any RPG elements whatsoever)

Hmmm, yeah, I'd go with that. It maybe has a fantasy setting, but where is the ROLE playing. Sure, you can be 1 of 3 stereotypical character classes, each with their own pitch altered sound (blergh!) and weapons/hit point totals, but I can't really say they were characters.

Not an RPG, a shoot 'em up in a medieval fantasy setting with 3 basic ways to play.

GooberMan said:
So you're thinking that the basic plot of Portals Of Praevus should be remade into a fully fledged game.

No, I think a sequel should be carried on from where Portal of Praevus left off.

Perhaps you've missed my point that repeating plotlines and cliched sequels suck.

Not if done right. Diablo 2 didn't suck, because it made sense that Diablo should return and because the ending of the first game already suggested his return.

The ending of PoP suggests the return of the Riders, that's why it *could* be done right if some imagination was used.

Thing is, I disliked HeXen 2 because it was so vastly different from HeXen in terms of characters and enemies (although there were similarities here and there). I don't want that to repeat itself in a potential HeXen 3 - I wan't it to retain what I felt was good about the original - the characters and monsters among other things. And I can't see how this could be done successfully if the villain isn't a Serpent Rider or THE Serpent Riders.

The road for their return has already been laid in PoP, that's why it's logical to assume that a sequal could be based on - not necessarily the fact that they HAVE returned in it - but possibly that they are about to clear the way for their full fledged return.

The Demoness from PoP could likely be a very central villain in a HeXen 3 (perhaps a boss late in the game) who does the last of her Master's bidding - to prepare the way for the return of the Three Demon Masters.
Just some speculation.

Enjay said:

It maybe has a fantasy setting, but where is the ROLE playing. Sure, you can be 1 of 3 stereotypical character classes, each with their own pitch altered sound (blergh!) and weapons/hit point totals, but I can't really say they were characters.

The term role-playing was chosen to distinguish it from "war gaming" (where you managed a whole army) and just because a game is in the "role-playing" gerne it doesn't have to have developed acting and persona development. I explained that above. The main principle is that you run and individual character with a more or less open-ended set of rules that permit creativity and interaction. "Acting" per se does not define the gerne, though a subset of it, more popular now than in the past, does delve extensively into role development.

A term used to define a gerne does not necessarily define that gerne as a whole, instead it is defined by the body of works (in this case games) that make it up.

You're just projecting the definition of movie/theatre characters onto role-playing games, which is what the role-intensive branch of role-playing games does. The Hexen characters are definitely characters in the RPG sense of the word, even DOOM's are to an extent; they can even interact by chatting ingame, but not about the imaginary looks of one of the character's girl friend or something (well, they could, heh, but I doubt it's necessary), only about things actually occurring in the game.

The FPS gerne is definitely a subset of the RPG gerne, or at least an offshoot that carries its main qualities but applies them to a particular format. The FPS gerne is defined by a clear set of standards (a computer game where you kill things from a 1st person perspective) and you know what a game is when they say "FPS" but that doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the rather broad definition of RPGs.

Speaking of Games like Doom and Heretic and so on..Has anyone heard of or played a game called: Chasm The Rift?

Just wondering....

Aleaver said:

Speaking of Games like Doom and Heretic and so on..Has anyone heard of or played a game called: Chasm The Rift?

Just wondering....

Damn straight I have. It's a fine game.

Heh, I'm in a talkative mood...

Hmmm, interesting how this is sparked because Hexen/Heretic are set in a "fantasy" genre and therefore people associate that with role playing, whereas Doom is a shooter, and the idea of role playing rarely enters the equation in most people's heads.

I would say both are fantastical, and therefore fantasy, and in both you take on a role (in a very limited sense) so yes, they can be considered role playing.

myk said:
The term role-playing was chosen to distinguish it from "war gaming" (where you managed a whole army) and just because a game is in the "role-playing" gerne it doesn't have to have developed acting and persona development.

When was the term role playing used in preference to "War Gaming" to make that distinction. I'm not aware of such a thing. I know that I have been role playing for many years, and am part of a role playing group in which no member has been role playing for less than 10 years, and have run a live adventure gaming and role playing group including contributing to national events, running events for over 70 people, running 48 hour events in rugged terrain, a regular group with over 30 people meeting regularly in 4 different cities. I know when I am role playing, because I am playing a role. I know when I am wargaming, and that is very different.

A term used to define a gerne does not necessarily define that gerne as a whole, instead it is defined by the body of works (in this case games) that make it up.

Agreed. I still feel that central to role playing is playing a role. Thus any game where you take on any form of identity, however briefly or cursorily can be considered role playing. A game like Hexen which does give you access to a role clearly must therefore be considered role playing, but as Ebola said, and I agreed it is stretching it to say you are taking on a role. It's more like you are walking around in someone else's shoes.

You're just projecting the definition of movie/theatre characters onto role-playing games, which is what the role-intensive branch of role-playing games does.

I most certainly am not. The biggest bugbear (heh) I have is the confusion and comparison between movie/theatre and role playing. A good role playing game can be demolished by a player who insists on saying "oh just like movie X" or being disappointed because a prop doesn't look as good as it does in the movies. Forget that the movies have a million dollar budget, the prop in question only looks good from 1 angle and the under the right lighting and the cool prop is probably less functional than the thing you have just handed your player.

The FPS gerne is definitely a subset of the RPG gerne, or at least an offshoot that carries its main qualities but applies them to a particular format. The FPS gerne is defined by a clear set of standards (a computer game where you kill things from a 1st person perspective) and you know what a game is when they say "FPS" but that doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the rather broad definition of RPGs.

Yeah, agreed. Once again I say it does stretch it to say the role playing element of Hexen, or any other FPS really does put you in the place of the character enough to call it playing a role. You are really a bunch of walking stats. Which, to be fair, is how a lot of people play traditional role playing games. I would also argue that they are not truly role playing either. Rather, they are just playing. Nothing wrong with that, and it can be fun. but I fail to see the "role" in the playing.

By the way, I've always felt that FPS with "experience levels" are stupid... your skill is already defined by your ability as a player, computer games are much more interactive that paper and pencil games, with actual physical input, so adding an experience acquisition system is both redundant and silly. You might as well just hand out powers with items gained, as usual...

On that point, I heartily agree. Making my gun wobble because I am not a good sniper yet, or something, is actually frustrating. It is simply a way of limiting what I am capable of by making the interface deliberately clumsy. Let me play the game from start to finish, slowly getting better at it naturally because I am practising. I can cope with "tada" A god appearing and granting me the ability to fly, or simply getting a new item to confer an ability, but let me do what I can do, thank you very much. Although, I can think of examples, not skill related, that could work (stat increases come to mind as possibilities) making you stronger or faster. Hmmmm, yes I don't think I have a problem with that.

The general principle you outline there is very much one I carry into my live action role playing games. Live action role playing is both limited by and enhanced by what a person can and can't do. If a person wants to be able to get over a 20 foot wall, its no good saying "fine, you have your flying spell, use it". If they can't actually fly, they still can't get over the wall. There is little point in pretending you are a lithe, acrobatic elf when you are actually a big fat potato. Sooner or later you are going to come unstuck, and other people simply wont believe you. Your skill choices have to be shaped by what you can and cannot do in such a situation, but this can be a freedom as well as a restriction.

computer games are much more interactive that paper and pencil games

Oh no no no no no! Perhaps in direct, immediate interaction, yes. I move my mouse and simultaneously the view on screen changes. I press a button and flames immediately fly from "my" hands. But, computer games are so limited. You can't say I'm going to try and climb that wall if the game doesn't have wall climbing in the engine. You can't say this'll be easier at night, I'm going to camp down until its dark, if the game has no night and day. You can't try and assassinate one of the important guys by coming up with a cunning plot that might just work if the important guy isn't vulnerable until map 21. Even if you do kill the important guy early, you are less likely to change the entire complexion of the game to, I dunno, having an entire army after you, being made king yourself, reaping financial rewards, or whatever the HUMAN running the game thought was suitable fallout/reward for your action, and more likely to simply have the game not work because as far as the game code is concerned, 1+1 no longer = 2. Very little you do in a computer game, even the most advanced ones truly changes the world, rather you just get sent down another pre determined path. This may give the illusion of interactivity, but it is a very limited version of it. Such true interactivity can and should be possible in a "paper and pencil" game with a good ref/DM and good players

Enjay said:

Hmmm, interesting how this is sparked because Hexen/Heretic are set in a "fantasy" genre and therefore people associate that with role playing, whereas Doom is a shooter, and the idea of role playing rarely enters the equation in most people's heads.

I would say both are fantastical, and therefore fantasy, and in both you take on a role (in a very limited sense) so yes, they can be considered role playing.

The fact that they are fantastic is mainly because they stem from RPGs, where that theme is dominant. The other things in common go hand in hand with this inherited characteristic.

Enjay said:

When was the term role playing used in preference to "War Gaming" to make that distinction. I'm not aware of such a thing.

Hmm, well, the history of role-playing must not be well documented, then. During the 80s (I played table-top RPGs all through the 80s and 90s) character development, as in creating a personality was nowhere near as dominant as it is now. And, as you just said, some people still play that way. You may not consider that "role-playing" from your perspective, but that is how the gerne began, and even today D&D is considered to attract a lot of this "raw" form of play that has less "brain candy" and sticks mainly to solving "adventures." Even though the game has absorbed a lot of techniques and rules used by more role-intensive games (like DOOM-based ports absorb features first appearing in other games) most of those features are not central and some can even be ignored if desired. Some people even consider that any sort of role-playing that escapes the bonds of the game, and that are there merely to flesh out characters, is rubbish (I tend to be like this, main reason I stopped playing RPGs.) This has to do with the role/game characteristics and arguments inherent to RPGs.

Enjay said:

I most certainly am not. The biggest bugbear (heh) I have is the confusion and comparison between movie/theatre and role playing. A good role playing game can be demolished by a player who insists on saying "oh just like movie X" or being disappointed because a prop doesn't look as good as it does in the movies. Forget that the movies have a million dollar budget, the prop in question only looks good from 1 angle and the under the right lighting and the cool prop is probably less functional than the thing you have just handed your player.

I meant that more in the way of fleshing out personalities, that is central to most (standard) movies or novels, as opposed to how it can be in an RPG, in the more basic sense, where you are a character only inasmuch as you interact with the hostile environments of the epic you're involved in, keeping aside or to a minimum your character's civilized (or not so civilized) background, ideas, upbringing, genealogy, friends, etc., and bringing them up ony as part of the action, if ever.

Enjay said:

Yeah, agreed. Once again I say it does stretch it to say the role playing element of Hexen, or any other FPS really does put you in the place of the character enough to call it playing a role. You are really a bunch of walking stats. Which, to be fair, is how a lot of people play traditional role playing games. I would also argue that they are not truly role playing either. Rather, they are just playing. Nothing wrong with that, and it can be fun. but I fail to see the "role" in the playing.

Well, I understand the position, and it is evidently pretty dominant among RPGers today, but if you can find old source material (very old Dragon Magazine issues have stuff on this) where this matter of how role-playing stemmed from miniature war games and how it developed during the 1st ten years you'll see what I'm saying. Plus what I'm saying also points out the strong relationship between the computer FPS and table-top RPGs, and how early RPGs and Hexen are practiacally identical. It's a question of long-time development. First you build the basics, the core elements that define the games, then variations occur as those basics are pretty much complete.

Enjay said:

Oh no no no no no! Perhaps in direct, immediate interaction, yes. I move my mouse and simultaneously the view on screen changes. I press a button and flames immediately fly from "my" hands. But, computer games are so limited. You can't say I'm going to try and climb that wall if the game doesn't have wall climbing in the engine. You can't say this'll be easier at night, I'm going to camp down until its dark, if the game has no night and day. You can't try and assassinate one of the important guys by coming up with a cunning plot that might just work if the important guy isn't vulnerable until map 21. Even if you do kill the important guy early, you are less likely to change the entire complexion of the game to, I dunno, having an entire army after you, being made king yourself, reaping financial rewards, or whatever the HUMAN running the game thought was suitable fallout/reward for your action, and more likely to simply have the game not work because as far as the game code is concerned, 1+1 no longer = 2. Very little you do in a computer game, even the most advanced ones truly changes the world, rather you just get sent down another pre determined path. This may give the illusion of interactivity, but it is a very limited version of it. Such true interactivity can and should be possible in a "paper and pencil" game with a good ref/DM and good players

Valid (we seem to agree too), but note that you quoted without the part where I said "with physical input" and that I'm comparing it to tabletop RPGs. Live action is a later development. RPGs, even table-top ones, allow you more and freer interaction in the sense you describe, but they don't let you get involved in the violence like FPSs do, nor are they dependent on your physical reflexes and preparation.

myk said:
The fact that they are fantastic is mainly because they stem from RPGs, where that theme is dominant.

Yes, quite probably so. My point, although being made a little obliquely, was the wider one that the genre of fantasy is much wider than Tolkienesque pseudo medieval fantasy. Not entirely relevant to the specifics of the topic inder discussion.

Hmm, well, the history of role-playing must not be well documented, then. During the 80s (I played table-top RPGs all through the 80s and 90s) character development, as in creating a personality was nowhere near as dominant as it is now...

So you are an "old hand" to eh? Always nice to meet one, although potentially dangerous too ;-) FYI, I can quickly lay my hands on some pretty old "Dragons" and D&D 1st edition just by going to the bookshelf too.

I wonder if the increase in more, how shall I put it, "in depth" character developement comes with the age of the player? I have experience of running role playing groups with very young players and far more mature players than I am. Try and give a group of 11-12 year olds an adventure that is anything other than "there's the monster, hit it" usually falls flat. Whereas presenting that to a more mature audience would soon have people "goofing off" because there was no challenge, and possibly because their carefully crafted character wasn't getting to be a character. I'm sure the age profile of players must have increased reasonably in step with the age of the genre.

This has to do with the role/game characteristics and arguments inherent to RPGs.

And what a dangerous minefield that can be. I can't count the number of times I have been confronted by an irate, finger waggling pedant who is desperately upset about the minutiae of some rule or ruling, let alone the bigger so called issues of the game.

but note that you quoted without the part where I said "with physical input"

Not intentionally. Especially as that was part of what I was agreeing with. :-)

Live action is a later development. RPGs, even table-top ones, allow you more and freer interaction in the sense you describe, but they don't let you get involved in the violence like FPSs do, nor are they dependent on your physical reflexes and preparation.

Indeed, live action is a much later developement, and a fun one. If you run the kind of very physical games that I do, that's where you can get you fill of the physical reflexes and preparation side of things.

FYI, and to give you a flavour of the physical nature of our games (not that you asked :-)) probably the most ambitious event I ran was for 20 players. It was the big finale to a 2 year campaign and some players had travelled literaly from overseas and for hundreds of miles to attend. Up to this point, the campaing had involved a number of overnight events, and even with the non over nighters, the shortest event had been 18 hours. We used the Scottish countryside, its forests, moors and ruined castles to the full.

For the final event, we took them out on the Friday night, and they walked about 2 miles to their forest camp site. After getting set up, they had a series of low level encounters involving diplomacy, spying, scene setting and patrolling. Then they were subjected to a series of more serious attacks from wandering beasts, teleporting demons and emisaries of the dark lord they were ultimately to be facing. Cunning use of spells and hard fighting saw the through the night. Attacks stopped at about 3:30 to 4:00 but they were roused and ready to march on by 6:30 (in the pouring rain).

Day 2 involed a 7 mile march over a quite large hill (it is only about 2000 feet tall, but is very long). Fortunately, the weather cleared up and actually got a bit too hot. During this time the players were subjected to sniper attacks, a huge pitched battle with a ballista equipped, magic backed squad of the dark lord's knights (from this point on, they also decided that carrying the captured ballista was a good idea - and it was a heavy wood made piece of kit), they did an assault on a fortified house, and rescued a prisoner and some magical items, they dealt with a series of small ambushes, the chance to ambush a camp themselves and rescue 2 prisoners, a battle with a troll priest and his wailing minions on top of the hill, some treachery, including being lulled into a trap by some elven archers and finally setting camp after a hard days fighting. Didn't stop there though. After they had eaten, they had a few patrols to do, then they went to bed in a safe haven. They were woken at 3:00 (that's AM) and told an outpost of the dark lords men were nearby. They got up, sneaked up on the guards and took them out nice and stealthily, then charged the main camp. There they found information that lead them to where one of the NPCs they were supposed to meet was being held captive. Another tough fight later, they had rescued her, but because she was injured, they had to carry her, on a stretcher, for about a mile back to camp. The look of those oh so tired limbs struggling to carry a person was quite a sight.

Day 3 started a little late, about 9:30. They climbed another 2000 foot peak, where they encountered an evil she elf and here dog men (!). They had to play a game, governed by her changing rules and outwit her, eventually twatting her and all her gaurds. Onwards and upwards to a very large battle on top another peak, being attacked by assasins on the way up and then having to assault a fortified position at the top. Next came the march across the plateau to the next peak where they finally got a glimpse of the Dark lord himself. A very hard battle ensued with the dark lord, his favoured dark paladins and priests and other minions. The dark lord escaped (don't they always) and the players went on to the final peak to charge up their magical banishment weapon. Then they came charging down, like an unstoppable frieght train, scything through any resistence that was put in their way (and there was quite a bit) until they arrived at a small ruined village where the dark lord had entered this world. A hard fight and eventually the dark lord was sent back whence he came. Game ended almost 51 hours after game start with very little sleep in the middle and either hard walking, crawling, fighting or running almost all the time. No serious injuries, one twisted ankle, one cut forehead and a lot of minor cuts and bruises. However there were 20 absolutely knackered but jubilant players who knew that after 2 years they had "done it" (and they really had, from a certain point of view) and one equally tired NPC team who had spent the previous 50 hours getting hit repeatedly. A hearty meal and a few pints later everyone was ready for bed.

So, that's the kind of live events we run. definitely the chance for physical input, and feedback.

dsm said:

that's why it *could* be done right if some imagination was used.

IMO, if imagination were to be properly used, the old serpent riders should be left out of it (unless they were going to be used in a WoT-style "resurrect in a different body to serve the master" fashion), the future-medieval idea should be put to use, and have it as an onset to some kind of Serpent Rider influx. But then again, computer game plots have rarely been non-cliche, so if Raven do another in the series it will probably have a similar story line to what you're proposing.

Y'know Gooberman, I oughta thank you. Your critical attitude has actually forced me to view my own ideas critically - which in turn leads to me improving on them.

So, uhh, thanks or something :-P

chilvence said:

Yay, an RPG discussion.

Umm. I though it was a doom vs hexen, and the likes and dislikes of both... Not an rpg discussion?
But hey... I could be wrong, ya know I only started the thread?
Not that I dislike Rpg's, I have always played AD&D...

dsm said:

Your critical attitude has actually forced me to view my own ideas critically - which in turn leads to me improving on them.

There's only so far reviewing your own ideas critically can go. Usually when I've had enough critisising my own ideas is when a map gets released :P

GooberMan said:

There's only so far reviewing your own ideas critically can go. Usually when I've had enough critisising my own ideas is when a map gets released :P

True, true, but you helped me open my eyes a bit more.

Now that I've beaten HeXen 2, I gotta say that it has the coolest boss battle of both HeXen games AND the first Heretic game (haven't tried Heretic 2 enough to beat it so I dunno what the final boss is like in that game)

You wouldn't like it. You don't actually defeat Morcalavin. Instead, you knock him down a few times to allow yourself time to get through that magic field and place the missing Tome of Power onto the altar and complete some kind of spell (Morcalavin had all but one of the Tomes of Power, so he used a fake one, and the resulting spell corrupted him).

Ah, but not actually killing Morcalavin fits in to the backstory of the game/s. But yeah, the battle isn't a particularly good boss battle, but it's not particularly bad either. The ending came and went too quickly IMO.

Ok, now I've seen a friend beat Morcalivan. I'm not impressed with him as a boss - he's just another sorcerer.

I dunno, but I prefer some scary-looking demon-esque monster as a boss. They look soo much more badass. One of the great things about Eidolon in HeXen 2 is that he grows so damn large and when he does, the sound when he walks makes you feel like the ground is actually shaking.
That and the cool roars he occasionally makes.

As much as I think HeXen 1 owns both Heretic 1+2 and HeXen 2, I gotta say that HeXen 2 has the best boss battle of 'em all.

D'Sparil seemed far too weak (though he was a pest on the hardest difficulty) - he only had one direct attack. His voice was cool though as was the fact that he first came at you with his "noble steed" *snigger*.

Korax had pretty cool means of attack - just watching those five balls of death fly at you was enough to make you go into "wimp-mode" (activate an Icon of Defender) - funnily enough, I forgot about my six Icons of Defender when I first beat him. Also his manipulating of the environment was also neat, though annoying at times.
Problem with him was that he didn't sound that scary - he just made some shrill cries that could easily be confused with the sound of him hurling magical bolts (I still don't know for sure if it actually was that), no cool roars or anything.

Eidolon, however, was close to perfect, my only beef being that sometimes, those lightning attacks were a real pest.

Dsm, I agree with you about Eidolon being the best end boss, but compared to War, he was just too easy. (actually comparing him to most other bosses save the other riders he was too easy) I easily beat him without icons of the defenders and no 4th weapon. :P