Yes, aging and "feeding" are good examples for those brutal pseudo-realistic 80ies RPG systems. The latter perhaps the most annoying sometimes as no food = death.
Yes, some people enjoy playing against these odds even if they are mostly not related to the plot (food is often NOT in small supply even though there is a crisis or siege situation!). Perhaps they are masochists, perhaps they like it simply complicated.
But: Where should this pseudo-realism end? I've yet to see an RPG where I have to go to the toilet - but I wouldn't rule out the existance of such a thing! Not going potty = death by exploding bowels? Necessary for the plot? Probably not. But think about the possibilities regarding experience points!
Joking aside: Food is clearly a sim aspect and RPG authors often decide to make their glorious epic a world simulator with some tacked on fights and drama.
Not necessarily a bad concept as some games have very well demonstrated (U7 with a party, Morrowind & Oblivion for solo characters to name obvious examples) but do I really have to gather & manage food to reach my plot goals?
Imagine Bruce Willis in chapter 8 of Die Hard where he interrupts killing terrorists/gangsters for a lunch hour. Or perhaps sleep an hour to get a new "level"?
When a major character in a Quentin Tarantino movie went to the toilet he got shot by his own weapon afterwards. Talk about punishment!
Aging should IMHO come into play when age is actually connected to something. For example building an existence, a family, marry & getting children. Perhaps even passing the buck to your children (family feud as a scenario for example)? Yes, there are some RPGs that come to my mind that explore some of these interesting concepts, with "SaGa Frontier 2" from SquareSoft being perhaps a prime example.
Any other use of aging (not "age" as a constant stat) is IMHO simply a method to punish players for taking more time to finish the game as usually older characters mean slower, weaker characters. That's at least my experience.
And also IMHO it's very bad design to punish players for their playing style. A game should be fun for anyone interested in the subject - not just the players rushing through it to keep their player characters at top performance. Some of us may not be as clever but are perhaps more thorough and explore every nook and cranny and try to solve every side quest...
Ghislain also said that he opted for a better interface and not something incredible complicated like in the 8-bit days where everybody assumed that you were willing to wade through the 50+ pages manual plus 8+ pages command summary.
Well, we are in the next century already and even if we are dealing with 8-bits here this doesn't necessarily mean that we still have to endure the "bad bits".
Yes, aging and "feeding" are good examples for those brutal pseudo-realistic 80ies RPG systems. The latter perhaps the most annoying sometimes as no food = death.
Yes, some people enjoy playing against these odds even if they are mostly not related to the plot (food is often NOT in small supply even though there is a crisis or siege situation!). Perhaps they are masochists, perhaps they like it simply complicated.
But: Where should this pseudo-realism end? I've yet to see an RPG where I have to go to the toilet - but I wouldn't rule out the existance of such a thing! Not going potty = death by exploding bowels? Necessary for the plot? Probably not. But think about the possibilities regarding experience points!
Joking aside: Food is clearly a sim aspect and RPG authors often decide to make their glorious epic a world simulator with some tacked on fights and drama.
Not necessarily a bad concept as some games have very well demonstrated (U7 with a party, Morrowind & Oblivion for solo characters to name obvious examples) but do I really have to gather & manage food to reach my plot goals?
Imagine Bruce Willis in chapter 8 of Die Hard where he interrupts killing terrorists/gangsters for a lunch hour. Or perhaps sleep an hour to get a new "level"?
When a major character in a Quentin Tarantino movie went to the toilet he got shot by his own weapon afterwards. Talk about punishment!
Aging should IMHO come into play when age is actually connected to something. For example building an existence, a family, marry & getting children. Perhaps even passing the buck to your children (family feud as a scenario for example)? Yes, there are some RPGs that come to my mind that explore some of these interesting concepts, with "SaGa Frontier 2" from SquareSoft being perhaps a prime example.
Any other use of aging (not "age" as a constant stat) is IMHO simply a method to punish players for taking more time to finish the game as usually older characters mean slower, weaker characters. That's at least my experience.
And also IMHO it's very bad design to punish players for their playing style. A game should be fun for anyone interested in the subject - not just the players rushing through it to keep their player characters at top performance. Some of us may not be as clever but are perhaps more thorough and explore every nook and cranny and try to solve every side quest...
Ghislain also said that he opted for a better interface and not something incredible complicated like in the 8-bit days where everybody assumed that you were willing to wade through the 50+ pages manual plus 8+ pages command summary.
Well, we are in the next century already and even if we are dealing with 8-bits here this doesn't necessarily mean that we still have to endure the "bad bits".
Kudos to Ghislain!
take care,
Calibrator
take care,
Calibrator