Why is it that RPG communities have a lot of armchair game designers?

Why is it that RPG communities have a lot of armchair game designers?

These people understand nothing about implementation

You din't have to be a good game designer to know Tyranny sucks

user, RPG Codex was predominately created around tabletop games. In case of those, you can literally make bunch of rules and everything is fixed, golden and great again.
Of course this doesn't translate to programming, but they don't care.

And as already noticed, you don't need to be good at design yourself to spot flaws in designs you are presented with.

pretty sure RPGcodex was created by disgruntled fallout/black isle fanboys

>TFW to intelligent for Codex

That's how No Mutants Allowed was started

Of course, making a set of table-top rules that are fun, coherent, and balanced is a difficult task. (Still much easier than making a CRPG, obviously.) And while you can spot that a design is flawed, it's trickier to correctly diagnose the flaws. If correct diagnosis of flaws were easy, e.g., politics/governance would be a walk in the park.

I thought the whole point was that RPG codex was populated by old cranky men.

But what the fuck do I know.

> tabletop games. In case of those, you can literally make bunch of rules and everything is fixed, golden and great again.

Not at all.
Implementing new rules at runtime will confuse everyone and make suspension of disbelief very difficult. New rules prepared before-hand for the sake of specific events, too, cause severe unresolved dissonance in play if they're not consistent with established mechanics.

The latter is the reason why so many boss fights in video games usually aren't fun. Rules are often invented solely for that situation, and they have no bearing on the rest of the world leading to and from it.

I made a thread about BG2 and how no CRPG has surpassed it in 16+ years, from a single-player campaign perspective.

I was accused of being from RPG Codex although I've never posted there, but if that is the opinion they hold then they must indeed be very smart.

I think RPGcodex's level of enthusiasm and respect for games is usually in the right place

But then we get literal garbage like Dead State and Age of Decadence, which they hyped up, and I then have mixed feelings.

What makes it so great?

Does it have a great story or is it all about the gameplay?

Also, would you recommend me to start with BG1 or go right into 2?

Not that user, but it combines a big world with good quests, fun characters and overall improved combat from BG1.

Story is 'meh', and while the villain gets a lot of praise it's only because of his voice actor. Irenicus himself was a terrible B-movie villain straight out of a JRPG.

>These people understand nothing about implementation
But most of the things they bitch about games not having were implemented about 20 years ago is superior ways. The fact that they are hard to come by now shows how bad modern RPGs have become.

I don't need to be a designer to see that RPGs have become more dumbed down and anti-technology recently.

BG1 is decent too and you should definitely start with it, it really feels like an adventure since you start at a very low and fragile level and work your way up.
BG2 is better in every way featuring something more resembling a coherent story and fun quests with an absolute assload of content.
However where it really shines is the encounter design paired with all the powerful spells, abilities and items you get to deal with those situations.
Also it's thankfully not overly balanced like the recent PoE and you can assrape the game quite easily or you can roleplay as a good or evil dude and find the fitting party members who have a surprising amount of fun banter throughout the game.

>it's an user has absolutely no idea what he's talking about episode

>this omega-tier /tg/ autism
simulationists are literally robots

>and anti-technology recently.

On the contrary, they're very pro-technology, it just happens to be in the realm of graphicsfagging and not related to mechanics.

Not that they're RPGs, but just look at RTSs and god games, two genres that captured the technological boost of the late 1990s and early 2000s. They couldn't have been done prior due to processor power. I mean fuck, Shogun Total War 1 (strategy-RTS hybrid) was absolutely mindblowing with how many units it could produce on the field with 2000 computer tech.

But today? Most all of that power has gone into giving a tired old dog a new coat of paint, not anything substantially or functionally different. It takes a lot of tech to do that, tech that could be otherwise used to give us some novelty.

Is grimoire out yet?

STW was the shit. MTW is where the series peaked mechanically and after that they just focused on shiny graphics. I would kill for another TW game with the same sprite graphics as Medieval with battles actually to scale and the old campaign map.

>comparing Deus Ex Human Revolution's shitty bosses to Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time's bosses
>one shoves a random baddie in your face that mechanically has very little to do with what you've been practicing throughout the game, especially if you've been playing stealth
>the other uses the whole dungeon as preparation and training for using one new item that you find along the way, and then have to successfully use against the boss

He's right you retard. Video game bosses should act like capstones, where you master a mechanic in the level/zone/dungeon leading up to the boss, and then the boss itself tests your expertise and skill.

Otherwise you're just flailing around in a game without context, slapping human feces to the wall hoping that it sticks. You never learn anything, and you never git gud.