Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BFEL]

Ok, so in response to that first quote: The reason they don't have several ways to get through each dungeon is because why would they? Because you want it? So what? For the effort it takes for them to implement all those features, they could do other things that appeal to their audience.

This is what we see as the problem Max. WE are their audience. And they took the things that we stuck by and changed every aspect they could about them until they could get a different audience.

Why should they care about what we think? Basic loyalty. We are the ones who supported them and put them in such a favorable position, and turning their backs on us isn't going to earn them any points. Games are ART. They are legally recognized as ART. And yet they have come into this insane process by which all the things that make them unique, all the parts which EARN THEM THE DESIGNATION OF ART are stripped away in return for bigger markets and bigger cash.

And I for one don't think that should be defended. I think that should be dragged kicking and screaming into peoples views, held up and presented with a big "FUCK YOU, BE BETTER THEN THAT" directed at the people who choose that process. Because Bethesda CAN be better then that. They've already shown they can. Now they just need to stick to it.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I think Max represents one audience for games and Strange represents another. What's interesting is that each seems to be defending how he enjoys games as superior to the other one; Max seems to be saying that the way he enjoys games is sufficient and he can get a 40 hour linear game and have fun. Strange seems to be saying he would prefer a sandbox, but still wants that 40 hour experience, but with more stuff remaining that he didn't do because he didn't find it or chose to avoid it.

On the surface Max has a good point in that the devs only have so much time to put into the game, and if they put 40 hours of content in a linear game, a sandbox version of that would have less than the 40 hours per run-through - probably more like 4 to 8. You would get multiple runs and/or different experiences with the sandbox but probably any hours of gameplay over the 40 represent repeated enjoyment of certain "crossroads" content that everyone will see: the starter town, the end dungeon, certain very useful shops, etc. Unless you play the sandbox as a completionist, in which case you combine all the times of all your potential run-throughs and again because of crossroads content you probably end up with 60 hours of gameplay. The extra 20 hours isn't free; it's not new content; it's just walking over old ground to get to new stuff in the other direction.

The argument that the devs should put more into the game is a separate one.

I guess we're really talking about whether a person enjoys the carefully managed play experience of a linear game, or the freedom with occasional slow parts and inconsistencies of a sandbox game. Arguing that one or the other is better is like arguing that eggs are clearly superior to edamame.

If we're talking about gameplay mechanics, though, I've gotta say TES 1: Arena had a lot going for it. Destructible terrain, climbing and levitating, complex conversations, long quest lines, ridable horses and usable carts, randomly generated terrain, fast-travel, high difficulty, day/night cycle with NPC schedules, and constructible spells. Bethesda did this in 1994.

I am one of those people who prefer gameplay to graphics. I think a lot of us who play DF are in the same boat. Bethesda has consistently made decisions, every time they come out with a new TES game, to reduce gameplay features because the game engine they wanted to use wouldn't support it. Daggerfall gained enchanting. Morrowind lost destructible terrain, climbing, horses and carts, random terrain, and difficulty but gained a prettier game engine. Oblivion lost levitation but got horses back, and you could argue it had very simple quests. Skyrim didn't lose anything specifically, but gained dual-wielding which I guess is cool.

I think if someone up-rezzed the engine used for Arena people would be blown away.

[GlyphGryph]

The thing people loved about Morrowind, let's be honest, was the setting. The setting had a lot to offer, and the design that went into it had a lot of integrity, rules for how things would work to create a unique experience in a unique and cohesive world.

The later games had a lot less conceptual integrity, and decided to switch to a traditional setting that was more heavily reliant on cliche and already tread ground. I'm not going to say they did this poorly - they have some skilled developers and writers, and in many parts of the game that was clear. And from a marketing perspective, it's probably a lot easier to market the new, more traditional cliche based setting than one that was more unique.

But Morrowind put a LOT of work into the setting, and for the people who loved it it's always gonna hurt that they, who were once very clearly considered a major audience of the TES games, are no longer being served.

But let's stop frickin' fighting about bullshit that has nothing to do with the topic of thread, right? No matter how much your feelings got hurt, or no matter how much you don't give a shit about what other people think, it's not frickin' relevant.

[kaijyuu]

If you like a band, and later down the line their sound changes making you not like it, you can kick and scream and whine telling them to go back to the way they were, or you can find another band to listen to.

I'm not saying this to discourage criticism; criticize away. But don't act entitled.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

It's true: vote with your wallet.

[Mr. Strange]

It's true: vote with your wallet.

And send letter or email to the company saying exactly why you do so, so they also know the reason.

So let's rerail this back to RPGs, and to the reason why we got lost in Tamriel, Character Developement. Long, long time ago, in the first page of this thread we talked about how player could create their character from scratch and define their abilities and skills (traditionally done by race, class and/or background selection) to their liking, and that these selections should make a difference in playing the game. I also think that setting and story in good RPG should complement your character (and vice versa), so player isn't just dropped into the setting out of nowhere without any connection to it but is/will become part of it, the part that player has chosen. The choices made in character creation and developement should make big difference to how the game plays out.

[Max White]

By character creation I assume you mean the initial choosing of race/class/gender/shit like that...

The choices made in character creation and developement should make big difference to how the game plays out.

Why? Why should the choices you make at the start of the game have a significant impact compared to the choices you make through the game?

[GlyphGryph]

So let's rerail this back to RPGs, and to the reason why we got lost in Tamriel, Character Developement. Long, long time ago, in the first page of this thread we talked about how player could create their character from scratch and define their abilities and skills (traditionally done by race, class and/or background selection) to their liking, and that these selections should make a difference in playing the game.

Did we? Was this somehow related to a game being an RPG? How? Because it doesn't seem like it has much to do with a game being an RPG. Especially since many of the best RPGs don't have character creation at all, forget character creation from scratch. (Many have class selection and the ability to make superficial modifications, but that's hardly "from scratch")

This seems to be a sandbox element, not an rpg-element. In my opinion, it makes the game less of an RPG.

Now, this isn't to say that a lot of people don't prefer to have RPG/Sandbox cross-genre games to pure RPGs. Lots of people love sandbox elements! But I've yet to see anything amounting to an argument on how it's a defining, crucial, or even in any way indicative component of a game being an RPG.

[Mr. Strange]

This seems to be a sandbox element, not an rpg-element.

I don't think Diablo was sandbox game even if it had classes... It's just question of how much of it is given at a time, is there actual character creation that fixes certain aspects at the begining or is the game defining and building your character constantly. Both can be RPG just as easily.

[Mephansteras]

By character creation I assume you mean the initial choosing of race/class/gender/shit like that...

The choices made in character creation and developement should make big difference to how the game plays out.

Why? Why should the choices you make at the start of the game have a significant impact compared to the choices you make through the game?

I think it can go either way. Final Fantasy Tactics has a very defined story and a very defined backstory for the main character. You always start out the same. However, the sheer amount of development you could do with both the main character and the rest of the party lead to very different dynamics and a game that had a surprising amount of replayability.

Now, I'm also a fan of games that let you have at least a degree of customization on your player from the get-go. They let you play 'your' character, and arguably this is much more important in games that respond more to the choices the player makes. This goes for both open world games (Like DF Aventure mode) as well as directed story games with choices (like Mass Effect).

[Max White]

Well yea, I agree it can go either way, depending on what sort of experience the devs want to model. Both are valid options, from "Build your character and live with it" to "Start as a perfectly generic being and go from there" and anywhere in between, but the statement was that character creation should be very significant, so why?

[Mr. Strange]

Notice I first said Character Developement, not creation. If game has creation option at the begining then yes, those choices should have consequenses in the game play from the get-go, otherwise there is no point to have them at all. If it is excluding some options completely (old school D&D) or just making hybrid character harder to make/balance (what I prefer) is up to the game mechanics to handle by what ever means they use (skill points, rate exp is earned etc.), but those choices you make in making your character -it doesn't matter if it is at the begining or during gameplay- should have affect in how the game plays out.

[Max White]

The choices made in character creation and developement should make big difference to how the game plays out.

Notice I first said Character Developement, not creation.

Seriously, buddy. Seriously.
Now not only did you say t should make a difference, but you specified a big difference, as in more significant than other factors. So why?

[GlyphGryph]

I don't think Diablo was sandbox game even if it had classes... It's just question of how much of it is given at a time, is there actual character creation that fixes certain aspects at the begining or is the game defining and building your character constantly. Both can be RPG just as easily.

I'm really not seeing it. Diablo had no character creation at all. It had a few predefined characters to pick from, as a nod to diversity of experience, but that hardly had an impact on whether or not it was an RPG. Are you really arguing that if it only had one class, but otherwise worked the same, it would have been less of an RPG? Not just a worse RPG, but actually less of one?

You need to make an actual argument here, because the things you are saying don't have any sort of obvious support. Your claims aren't even clear. I also never said, or even argued in the slightest, that Diablo was a sandbox game, so I'm not even sure if you're actually reading what I'm writing.

Give me an example of a game where you create your character at the beginning, but do NOT build the character over the course of the game, that you think is RPG, because I can't think of any. I can certainly think of the opposite! You can build your own character, choose your race, your build, your skills and appearance in Halo 2 multiplayer, but that's certainly no RPG.

I can give you an endless list of the inverse, though - games where you always start exactly the same but build your character over the course of the game, which are clearly and unarguably RPGs.

Meph - I'm not saying character creation is good or bad, I'm just saying it's not relevant to whether or not a game is an RPG.

choices you make in making your character -it doesn't matter if it is at the begining or during gameplay- should have affect in how the game plays out.

Are you opposed to aesthetic choices? Do you think "The Sims" is worse for giving you a lot of character customization that doesn't actually effect how the game turns out? Are fighting games worse for offering multiple skins of characters? Can it not be rewarding in and of itself simply to have choice, and is that not enough?

And again, this is you arguing what you think makes a good game, which is completely irrelevant to "what makes a game an RPG"

[Max White]

Give me an example of a game where you create your character at the beginning, but do NOT build the character over the course of the game, that you think is RPG, because I can't think of any. I can certainly think of the opposite! You can build your own character, choose your race, your build, your skills and appearance in Halo 2 multiplayer, but that's certainly no RPG.

You know while I can't think of any games like this, I do think it would make for an interesting RPG, and on point a valid example of an RPG. At the start of the game you run your character sheet and draw from a stat pool to determine what your character can do, and then that is it, that is who you get to be. No more EXP or skill points, just the static character you got to build.

Although I think it would make for a very interesting experiment, I don't think it would be very popular. Leveling systems preform double duty in making people interested in a game. On the plus side they scale difficulty to suit a players needs. Somebody who isn't very good can grind a little more and still feel satisfied when beating a boss, while a more skilled player can have fun trying to beat the game without leveling past a certain point. The darker side is that leveling systems are often designed as a form of operant conditioning to keep players addicted to the game for longer.