Print

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

[Jelle]

If I invest my time in a game, I want to feel like I've accomplished something, that I can point to it and say "there, that's what this time was for." If I can just die and lose everything, I just don't want to play anymore.

I have to disagree here. Permadeath and the risk of losing everything only adds to the accomplishment, in my opinion. It can be harsh, but ultimately so much more gratifying.
It's not for everyone definately, and it should always be an optional feature. Options are always good.

I will say I dislike permadeath when the game isn't designed for it. Games that rely heavily on trial and error, and ones with a low but ever looming chance to get insta killed (by chance or by making a mistake). Both are are a nightmare with permadeath.

[Jelle]

Also a lot of "open world" games these days.  What's the point of the open world aspect if the questing itself becomes linear and and points you exactly where you need to go?  Like Fallout 3 was a prime example of this.  There wasn't any real choice with what you were doing, and the story railroaded you hardcore.

Yeah bethesda's open world games from oblivion on are a good example of open world done poorly, imo. They make an impressive world...and then don't really do much with it. Most npc interractions are bland, and the quests are awfully linear. Makes for a good modding foundation though I suppose.

[Arbinire]

Also a lot of "open world" games these days.  What's the point of the open world aspect if the questing itself becomes linear and and points you exactly where you need to go?  Like Fallout 3 was a prime example of this.  There wasn't any real choice with what you were doing, and the story railroaded you hardcore.

Yeah bethesda's open world games from oblivion on are a good example of open world done poorly, imo. They make an impressive world...and then don't really do much with it. Most npc interractions are bland, and the quests are awfully linear. Makes for a good modding foundation though I suppose.

It isn't just Bethesda games but they're one of the biggest culprits of it these days I'll admit.  The Farcry series though is another one guilty of this.  Yeah you can run around and do all these other side missions that don't amount to anything, but the story is always going to be drawn to the same conclusion.  Open world used to mean you could be the hero, or the villain, and anything in between.  Now it just means side-quests.

As to permadeath/survival/crafting games, I think these only work when those are the express purposes of the games themselves.  Like Cataclysm Dark Days Ahead or Unrealworld...the point of those games are exactly that, you set your own goals and you see how long you can go until you either meet or exceed those, or you want to try something new.  They're not made to be beaten so much as to just enjoy yourself.

[PrimusRibbus]

It isn't just Bethesda games but they're one of the biggest culprits of it these days I'll admit.  The Farcry series though is another one guilty of this.  Yeah you can run around and do all these other side missions that don't amount to anything, but the story is always going to be drawn to the same conclusion.  Open world used to mean you could be the hero, or the villain, and anything in between.  Now it just means side-quests.

That's a good way to put it. I've always felt like some open-world games trade narrative for mini-games. Sure you can go wander wherever you want, but it's hard to build any sort of interest or attachment to your character, the world, or the NPCs when you're this sanitized, amorphous handyman who does odd jobs most of the time.

What's more frustrating is that sometimes the illusion of choice is much worse for the narrative than just straight out being linear. I remember playing KOTOR for the first time and wanting to be a Han Solo-esque scoundrel (i.e. a good guy who believes that the ends justify the means), only two realize that my only choices at the end of the day were naive lily-white good guy, or phoned-in evil-for-no-reason bad guy. It made the game much less fun and far more incoherent than if it had been a linear RPG where they told me straight out that I was "honorable good Jedi Guyovich" or "oh no I'm bad Sith Fellow."

[itisnotlogical]

What's more frustrating is that sometimes the illusion of choice is much worse for the narrative than just straight out being linear. I remember playing KOTOR for the first time and wanting to be a Han Solo-esque scoundrel (i.e. a good guy who believes that the ends justify the means), only two realize that my only choices at the end of the day were naive lily-white good guy, or phoned-in evil-for-no-reason bad guy. It made the game much less fun and far more incoherent than if it had been a linear RPG where they told me straight out that I was "honorable good Jedi Guyovich" or "oh no I'm bad Sith Fellow."

If I remember the marketing for KOTOR, it was less about "You can be ANYBODY!" and more about "You can be a Jedi or Sith!" I may remember wrong though.

I've yet to see moral choice done really well in any video game. It never feels organic. They put it in dialogue trees, or make it an obvious "do THIS thing in THIS mission", when it should really be invisible to the player.

As for me, voice chat used to be a really exciting prospect. But then I realized I play 90% of online games with complete strangers, most of whom don't have headsets anyway. I might get one if I ever get back into League of Legends, but only because it'd be genuinely helpful in a MOBA setting.

And "early access" is starting to grate a bit. It's probably just me, but I always enjoyed waiting for a 100% finished, polished product. So many games nowadays come with "... but it's in open beta" at the end, I can list more unfinished early-access games from the top of my head than I can finished ones.

[Sappho]

Actually, so far I'm finding Skyrim to have pretty good moral choices. Granted, I'm only 9 hours into the game (and in Skyrim that's not much), but I've already found myself in some pretty tricky situations.

Someone tells me that assassins are after her because of a crime she didn't commit. I track down the leader and he laughs, says they're not assassins, that the woman is lying to me, a horrible criminal, and that I can help him catch her and take her back home for a fair trial. I agree to do it, but then have a change of heart and kill him instead. I have no idea if this will have an impact on the game world as a whole, but it feels significant, and I have no idea which one of them was lying. I had to go with my gut. That guy is dead now, and the woman is still walking the streets.

In the middle of all this, a random guy runs up to me, shoves an enchanted weapon into my hand, and demands that I hold it for him for a minute. Seconds later I see another guy running around screaming "Thief! I'll kill you!" The guy runs up to me, asks if I've seen a thief around here. Do I rat him out? Tell the truth? Give the weapon back and hope for a reward?

Then there are larger issues. I walk into a city for the first time and see a guy about to be beheaded for mistakenly opening the gates to someone who planned on attacking the king. The crowd seems uncertain about whether he really deserves to die for this. Do I stand by and watch it happen? I could run up, kill the guards, and save the guy. I'm strong enough that I'm pretty sure I could do that and get away. But then I'd be a criminal here, probably could never do anything peacefully in this city again.

There have even been times I've seen bandits, wolves, and other NPCs that are usually enemies, but they haven't attacked me. Do I kill them anyway? Let them live? Or, I see a pack of wolves hunting an elk. Kill the wolves and save the elk? Let them go, let nature do its thing?

I meet an orc on the side of the road who informs me he's looking for a glorious death. Should I kill him?

Then there's the larger plot issue of the war. I can take a side, or try to stay out of politics.

All this is done without morality bars or points. I think the real problem with moral choices in games is they're always trying to quantify it, when they start calling it a "morality system." Systems break the realism. They get you thinking about how to make the bars fill up rather than letting you get immersed in the story. As you say, it should be invisible to the player, otherwise it becomes just another points system to min/max. I much prefer when the consequences are not counted up and presented to you. Just there, in the world, in your mind. That person you killed never comes back to life. You can't go back and make the right choice when it's too late.

[cerapa]

Then there are larger issues. I walk into a city for the first time and see a guy about to be beheaded for mistakenly opening the gates to someone who planned on attacking the king. The crowd seems uncertain about whether he really deserves to die for this. Do I stand by and watch it happen? I could run up, kill the guards, and save the guy. I'm strong enough that I'm pretty sure I could do that and get away. But then I'd be a criminal here, probably could never do anything peacefully in this city again.

You can't save that guy.

[rabidgam3r]

Then there are larger issues. I walk into a city for the first time and see a guy about to be beheaded for mistakenly opening the gates to someone who planned on attacking the king. The crowd seems uncertain about whether he really deserves to die for this. Do I stand by and watch it happen? I could run up, kill the guards, and save the guy. I'm strong enough that I'm pretty sure I could do that and get away. But then I'd be a criminal here, probably could never do anything peacefully in this city again.

You can't save that guy.

I did try to save that guy, but only because I wanted the executioner's axe.
Turns out that axe, (I think), doesn't actually exist in the game.

[Mech#4]

Savable, but with no circumstances programmed for that situation. Something a bit disheartening about the Elder Scrolls series but.. well they can't include all possible outcomes.

[scrdest]

Savable, but with no circumstances programmed for that situation. Something a bit disheartening about the Elder Scrolls series but.. well they can't include all possible outcomes.

Yeah, but... that's the issue. In the end, Skyrim NPCs are just setpieces that can't really go off the script. They don't really have any motivations that are non-scripted, and usually a quest thing. You basically move from event to event - granted, the order in which you do that is mostly up to you, but once you complete all the quests the world is basically static.

Plus, sometimes you have stuff like that quest with the burnt-down house and the ghost girl, where you basically have no moral choices, only DO QUEST/NOT DO QUEST - and if you don't, nothing changes.

[Neonivek]

I have no idea if this will have an impact on the game world as a whole, but it feels significant, and I have no idea which one of them was lying

The answer to any of these is usually... None.

[Retropunch]

I feel a lot of the loss of open worldness is that game companies now realise that players might only see 4-5 hours of their game, so unless they clearly signpost 'DO THIS FOR THIS OUTCOME OR THAT FOR THAT OUTCOME' it'll get lost on most players and they just won't realise.
This is especially the case when the outcome can be 'bad'.

[GlyphGryph]

One of the things I loved about fallout was how so many small decisions actually ended up having huge impacts in the epilogue. It actually felt like all that stuff you did *mattered*, and it was pretty great. The world was a different place because of you.

A lot of modern open world games just plane don't have that sort of impact.

[scrdest]

One of the things I loved about fallout was how so many small decisions actually ended up having huge impacts in the epilogue. It actually felt like all that stuff you did *mattered*, and it was pretty great. The world was a different place because of you.

A lot of modern open world games just plane don't have that sort of impact.

It still was all canned, though, albeit excusable for the era. In case you hadn't noticed, , I'm extremely into the idea of something like what DF2014 is getting at, or CK2 with more personal details - you basically model the social dynamics and motivations of an NPC and just let them go nuts with that.

In case you think it's impossible - that is actually how Oblivion's AI originally worked. It got... basically castrated, although in the interest of gameplay. They way they did it, the AI was just extremely... straightforward. As in, 'merchant has item I want, I have gold the merchant wants? Hmm... let's see... OK, I know, I'm just gonna bash his face in and take the item.'

I think that if they just took that system and worked on it instead of lobotomizing it, they could have made THE AI system.

[Mech#4]

I remember one of the gameplay videos of Oblivion with the shopkeeper paralysing her dog because it wouldn't stop barking while she was reading. Pretty sure it was scripted but it did get peoples imaginations going at the time.

"S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of Chernobyl" had A.I. that was fully capable of completing the games objective of reaching the wish granter on its own at one point. They toned it back in the released game because I don't think players would've enjoyed losing within a half hour of starting.

Ultima VII is nice because the NPCs have schedules they adhere to. Bakers get up, have breakfast, go to work, bake bread, take a break for lunch and go back, etc etc. You can go into a tavern during midday and you'll see nearly the whole town there eating. Skyrim and Oblivion has schedules but the NPCs don't produce things during work and they don't eat things during meals.