Print

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

[Thief^]

"Borderlands" makes quite an effort compared to most other RPGs, the enemies you fight are either monsters which leave behind random crap they've "eaten", or humans which drop the weapons they're actually using! To get a 5-shot-spread rocket launcher of firey doom, you either buy it, find it in a chest or defeat an NPC who's using it. Conversely, if a human NPC enemy is really shooting the crap out of you, you know that when you kill them you'll get their sweet gun.

But then in DF (fort mode) enemies you kill drop everything down to their underwear and you can even do things with their corpses, so there's still a way to go for these supposedly "AAA" games.

[platypus]

I'm just going to post this here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Thanks for that! xD

...the same reasons that a huge community of people are still playing Morrowind over and over again...

I remember playing The Elder Scrolls: Arena avidly (which dates me more than I'd like, though I'm still in my 20s), which is essentially ADoM in a faux 3D environment. It had the roughest, most tenuous main plot, and mostly the player did whatever the hell he wanted, within the larger, very loose, confines of the greater story. The game was extremely flawed, but it had a consistent, lingering freedom that to me made it more immersive than anything BioWare has ever churned out - and I mostly enjoyed Baldur's Gate. The realization that someone's forcing your hand at every turn is potently off-putting.

Upon first entering a new game world, I want to be overwhelmed. I want to have to spend considerable time just getting my bearings, figuring out how everything works, sussing the internal logic of the game universe. With DA:O (which I'm only singling out to illustrate my point - there are worse games), I felt like I knew everything I needed to know within two minutes of playing. I can't imagine that game even has a manual. It's thoroughly arcade, and clearly influenced by the restraints of console play. The combat is somewhat layered, but still conceptually very simple, and plays like a separate RTS, a feeling that is strongly reinforced by the pausing system, the point of view and the party-style character controls.

Like I mentioned, the high point, for me, was character creation. Once the game started, at no time did I get the impression this was a living, breathing world, or indeed anything but a strictly scripted play-along presentation. Gothic II, also far from perfect (and, tellingly, coming from a more independent, fringey software house), came far closer to actually making me care.

[zwei]

Zwei, everything you've suggested would *break* an RPG are the same reasons that a huge community of people are still playing Morrowind over and over again, and adding mods to build replay value... why? Because they know that modern AAA RPG releases just aren't going to satisfy. They've been streamlined and boxed-in and the RPG fan knows it.

Is it?

They need to enjoy base game first to get into modding (either just using mods or to create them).

Somehow, i feel that modding is not going to 'fix' game. People need to get deeper to game first to enjoy mods and to seek them out. If they hate first X-hours and uninstall, mod is not going to change it.

Morrovind is game that bets on being sandbox. It succeeds at that for it fans, but it is broken game for me, exactly for reasons I wrote here. I look at table with prepared food which i can interact with and have to wonder: What does it add to game? Could they have spent resources on something interesting? It is there basically just for show and novelty, "look, i can pick fork, this is soo nextgeny, must write about it to review!", few minutes later you will be ignoring all this stuff. It is just ... uninteresting. Realistic, but pointless.

Anyhow, someone could make mod that fixes all the OPs grievances with DA ... more interactivity, plot adjustments, realistic loot. But DF is still going to be bad game for him.

[Rilder]

I hate linear storylines and outright refuse to pay money for them, if you want me to play a linear storyline, you can pay me. Better yet make a donation to Toady instead instead.

If I see a linear storyline game that looks at all interesting I wait for someone to do a "Lets Play" of it, saves money and the work of actually playing the game. 

Dwarf Fortress is one of those games where you can forge your own story, where even if you read 50 "Lets plays" of it your experience can be completely different.


Edit: I also consider games where your given choices but only choices like "Do this or that but nothing else" Linear games and Games like Morrowind and Oblivion, while allowing you to do other stuff besides the main quest, are in the end Linear storyline games.

[platypus]

Anyhow, someone could make mod that fixes all the OPs grievances with DA ... more interactivity, plot adjustments, realistic loot. But DF is still going to be bad game for him.

It looks like you've fundamentally missed the main thrust of my case here. The game is flawed - to me - at the conceptual level, and no amount of superficial modding is going to save it.

And I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that DF is "a bad game for me." I adore it, which should be perfectly clear from my starting this laudatory thread. EDIT3: Ah, you meant DA. =)

EDIT2: I agree with Rilder that any forced decision will impose some linearity on the gameplay, but there's a chasm of difference between the rigidity of play in Morrowind, and that of DA:O. Clearly, less is more. The ultimate game has no set story, but generates believable storylines organically, which is obviously what DF is working toward. It's an altogether worthy goal. One could argue you'd never get the same depth of narrative you'd see in a carefully scripted game, but I've yet come across a game that really delivers on this point. These are game-developers, not authors. And besides, a story feels far more genuine and meaningful if it intricately intersects with, depends upon, and arises from the mechanics of the game world, rather than is imposed upon them.

[zwei]

Anyhow, someone could make mod that fixes all the OPs grievances with DA ... more interactivity, plot adjustments, realistic loot. But DF is still going to be bad game for him.

It looks like you've fundamentally missed the main thrust of my case here. The game is flawed - to me - at the conceptual level, and no amount of superficial modding is going to save it.

And I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that DF is "a bad game for me." I adore it, which should be perfectly clear from my starting this laudatory thread.

Ups, I meant DA there

[Alexhans]

Is this what games have come to? Is today's average game consumer really this dumb? The experience was so stultifyingly tedious, it was all I could do to keep myself from screaming. And the storytelling - ostensibly a high point - makes me wonder whether anyone who likes this game has ever read a single page of serious literature.

Yes.  We live in the graphics infatuation era.  All that maters is aesthetics.  Shallow is the way to go.

You've got something right.  We want freedom in our virtual worlds.  We're tired of playing 3d games like 2d platformers where we can just go forward.

Just imagine how this would work in real world: Madman enters village, tries to have hour long conversations about everyones childhood and to simultaneously strip their homes of everything.

He would end up beaten badly, or ignored/met with locked 'noone is at home' door.

ok... make it so! 

There's so much things I'd like to say about this but it would take me over an hour to get my thoughts straight and explain with example games...

Ok... I clearly can't write something short.  All I'll say is... graphics aren't everything, they should suffice the purpose of a game but not be the main focus.

Bye.

oh... and thanks Toady! 

PS:  I haven't tried games like Baldur's gate or Neverwinter Nights... How would those fit in here?

[Supermikhail]

World is not supposed to be your sandbox. There is no reason it should be. Seriously, ability to take platters off table or to have long conversations with beggars has no point.

That's weird but just recently I stumbled on a Youtube channel dedicated to game design. http://www.youtube.com/user/thebgbb There the guy makes some points about flavour in games. Like when they had a rat dagger in some game, some users would just stuff it in their inventory and sell it later. And others would read the description about the dagger's history and wonder at the creators' attention to detail and creativity. And that would add to their level of immersion and satisfaction. You see behind that dagger that developers cared about their gamers and weren't just making money on them... Then, gamers who are blatantly made money on, don't seem to complain about it.

And also. If in a game you have an urge to collect everything and sell it to a merchant, I think it's the game's problem. Because, you know, somehow in the real world it is handled.

If you expect more, well, Tolstoy grade stuff would make increadibly sucky backstory for game. Unplayable and dumb&dull. You need conflict that easily becomes physical to allow for good exploration/battle mix, you need space for character personality and wiggling space for choices. You want to compress everything to ~ 5-6 dialogue lines. That is hard to do and yes, it makes some stuff sound dumb.

There are simply brilliant short movies, where the plot and the dialogue fits into 8 minutes. And they somehow manage not to look dumb, they allow enough space for development (and conflict). And seriously, if you make your plot for good exploration/battle mix, you'd better go make an MMO. I maybe alone here but I think you need to justify your exploration and battle by the plot, not vice versa (if you want it as your strong point).

Sorry, I guess I'm becoming incoherent but Bioware's games have been bugging me for so long, I think I've got tic about it.

And thanks, Toady.

[zwei]

World is not supposed to be your sandbox. There is no reason it should be. Seriously, ability to take platters off table or to have long conversations with beggars has no point.

That's weird but just recently I stumbled on a Youtube channel dedicated to game design. http://www.youtube.com/user/thebgbb There the guy makes some points about flavour in games. Like when they had a rat dagger in some game, some users would just stuff it in their inventory and sell it later. And others would read the description about the dagger's history and wonder at the creators' attention to detail and creativity. And that would add to their level of immersion and satisfaction. You see behind that dagger that developers cared about their gamers and weren't just making money on them... Then, gamers who are blatantly made money on, don't seem to complain about it.

And also. If in a game you have an urge to collect everything and sell it to a merchant, I think it's the game's problem. Because, you know, somehow in the real world it is handled.

If you expect more, well, Tolstoy grade stuff would make increadibly sucky backstory for game. Unplayable and dumb&dull. You need conflict that easily becomes physical to allow for good exploration/battle mix, you need space for character personality and wiggling space for choices. You want to compress everything to ~ 5-6 dialogue lines. That is hard to do and yes, it makes some stuff sound dumb.

There are simply brilliant short movies, where the plot and the dialogue fits into 8 minutes. And they somehow manage not to look dumb, they allow enough space for development (and conflict). And seriously, if you make your plot for good exploration/battle mix, you'd better go make an MMO. I maybe alone here but I think you need to justify your exploration and battle by the plot, not vice versa (if you want it as your strong point).

Sorry, I guess I'm becoming incoherent but Bioware's games have been bugging me for so long, I think I've got tic about it.

And thanks, Toady.

Details are great, but they do not stand out if you drown them in gray masses of garbage.

What I am saying is that 'rat dagger' is different thing from realistic hut. First is 'cool detail' that rewards exploration and attention with bit of lore. Later one is just ... clutter. You do not go 'ah, he has two forks but only one knife,now, wait a sec, seccond knife is in drawer, how cool'.

Little detail simply needs to be remarkable and remember able, or is becomes just clutter.

---

Short movies can be brilliant, but they are still quite long, and unconnected, meaning that they are very free. Not only that, they do not have 'agendas', as in, they do not have to fill in blanks in characterization and lore. They can do their own thing even.

Short movie does not have to do exposition. RPG game has to do it constantly because you are always meeting new characters and learning about new settings.

Say, take first dialogue after you finish origin story:

You are presented with king. Lets see what you should learn from this:

 * Darkspawn have so far not beeing huge threat and king is over confident.
 * He has head full of glory.
 * He trusts and adores Grey Wardens
 * There is conflict with Loghain, but he trusts him
 * Grey wardens do not agree much with his relaxed outlook on situation.
 * You need to be take part in one ritual.
 * Find Alistair, btw.

You get to hear half a dozen sentences from him and it takes less than minute. That is very packed. Writes had many goals here, and little space. They could ommit more or less, but that would end up kinda sucky ... no exposition/backstory for players.

[Bloogonis]

I actually like linear storylines.

more precisely, good stories! Bioshock was excellent! and the revile of "Would you kindly" gave me chills. I havent gotten a chance to play DA but it didn't wow me with the adds and I am yet to see someone rave about it post release(that didn't have money involved).

for the catch all world/mind/fabric of time bending game I've got DF, and in the future for the world bending and multilayer(But sadly without the 4th finger on the left hand flying off in a bloody arc) I will have Infinity:The Quest for Earth. so im happy.

[Kilo24]

Thanks, Mr. Platypus. I was considering buying Dragon Age, but suspected it would just be Mass Effect with swords, or Jade Empire in Eurocentric fantasyland. Both of which I hated, after being spoiled by a diet of Morrowind (and, to some extent, Oblivion - but let's not start that again). I prefer the sandbox feel of Bethesda games, and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with their stories... if anything I find them more captivating than anything of Bioware's.

Heh.  I have the opposite preferences.  Morrowind was less linear than Baldur's Gate, but the huge content that was there wasn't as interesting to me as what Bioware created, in general.  Combat is pretty bad in Morrowind (Oblivion improves it, but it's still flawed) which tends to be a large part of pretty much every RPG for tradition's sake.  The mechanics in Bethesda's games are usually more about making systems that apply to everything (like DF does) rather than creating good/challenging content.  Unlike DF, Bethesda's games aren't aiming for achieving that critical mass that comes when you've got enough systems working together to achieve feeling like you can do most things that you want to.

Bioware consistently has good characters.  Not as good as The Longest Journey, or Knights of the Old Republic 2, but still pretty good.  Bethesda doesn't.  Bioware tends to have decent-to-good combat, more social interaction depth, and a hell of a lot better treatment of leveling systems.  They don't have as much content, but at least in my case I've been more motivated to discover all the content that they do have rather than Morrowind's countless identical caves and towns with so many NPCs with all the same dialogue.  Oblivion does a bit better, especially as far as quests are concerned, but the hideous auto-levelling of monsters and loot, more generic setting, and worse spell creation mechanics leave me to prefer Morrowind still.  Fallout 3 was an interesting hybrid of Bethesda's philosophy with a more unique setting (and they finally got a good leveling system out of it) but it was more restricted than their previous offerings.

My main annoyance with sandbox games is that the huge amounts of content that they have is pretty shallow; Bethesda's attempts are firmly not an exception.  Dwarf Fortress is still in this category, but unlike most games it shows that it might actually alleviate that problem.  That is definitely an intriguing prospect, and there's pretty much nothing else like it.  I'll second the thanks to Toady for that.

[Azkanan]

Dragon Age: Origins is praised for it's replayability... What replayability? I've played it through once, on easy.

I then started again with a completely different character (First was a Dwarven Noble, of course, my second being a bow-sucking elf from the city).
I decided to play it through on on Mediocre. The game basically makes you weaker, and your enemies stronger, basiacally fiddling with the numbers... A cheap shot, if you ask me. At least throw in some different creatures, right?
But, my point is, dual weapons is the way to go. No matter how you try and play (Shield-bearing dwarf, bow-bearing elf, magic-wielding human) you'll always wind up using Duals. If you play on anything but casual, you will die - especially as a mage, but my rant on the uselessly weak mages is neverending.
Dual Weapons + Momentum = x4 attacks per attack everybody else does. If you don't use this on mediocre or above, you die. :|

As for the interactivity with the world... It's about as Interactive as it's "Spiritual Ancestor" (As it is hailed, which I completely disagree with) Baldur's Gate - which is, not interactive at all.
They do not understand what Interactive is! Interactive is making changes in your world based on your actions. Fable 2 got it somewhat right, with the ability to cause the death of towns, slightly, and whatnot.

Interactivity is not telling a companion they are fags, and then them attacking you and dying.
Interactivity is not running around doing menial tasks, running through drawn-out mob-infested dungeons, just to get some guy to give you troops that you don't even need in the final battle.

Interactivity is killing a king, and having all hell break loose with the faction you hail from.
Interactivity is murdering and stealing from a caravan, and causing the caravan's faction sending an army to destroy you.

You get the idea.

[/rant]

[expwnent]

A smattering of thoughts:

Interestingly enough, I got DA:O just before I got started with Dwarf Fortress, and I did enjoy it, even though it's linear and very "standard RPG" just because I like RPGs. Quest / Kill / loot / sell is a good formula. It gets boring after a while, so when that happens, you play something else.

Modding extends games. It lets you have the same basic game, plus some extra stuff, or it lets you have a few more features, or gets rid of those fucking cliff racers. They're the cats of Morrowind.

I liked Morrowind in particular because of the overall "feel" of it. Obviously I can't truly be part of the world, because they can't plan for everything you could do, but I really got immersed in the history, the depth of the game. If you read 2920 (in-game book, available online) you'll see what I mean. There are actually several different interpretations of the events way back when. Are the Tribunal good or bad? Well, sort of.

The storyline of Morrowind is linear. I'll give you that. But the gameplay is not. Not really. I mean yes, there are only finitely-many quests, but having unlimited meaningfully different quests is too strict a requirement for a game to be considered nonlinear.

Yes.  We live in the graphics infatuation era.  All that maters is aesthetics.  Shallow is the way to go.

Dwarf Fortress's existence proves this. The limiting factor in gameplay these days is not gameplay, it's graphics.


I would call Baldur's Gate II linear with extensive side-quests. BG I is a lot less linear because you can just go off in some direction and see what you can see. Throne of Bhaal is completely linear.

And yes, combat is horrible in Morrowind.

(and they finally got a good leveling system out of [Fallout 3])

I prefer the "learn how to sneak by sneaking" system over the "learn how to sneak by killing things" system.

[Azkanan]

* Loot ... look, mobs have to look impressive, so of course they will have neat weapons/armor. No, you can not get it. There is this thing: Balance. Loot has to match challenge, not what mobs would really carry.

Besides, typical rpg-player instinct would be to strip everything naked and to regurarly return to npc merchant to sell it as their inventory fills. That is hardly positive thing, it breaks immersion, hard.

The NPC's armour got wrecked in the battle, right? If you killed the guy, chances are you shredded his shiny breastplate... Well, why don't they have it so that Scrap Metal is dropped, or, something? That can then be smelted down into a reusable bar.

Also, you speak of inbalance... DF has all its creatures drop what they are wearing, do you see the player then able to take over the world?  No. You still have other pressing issues.

It's not the fact that it causes a disbalance, it's that the RPG is focussed only as money being a factor. RPG Players save up this money to buy armour, weapons and magical trinkets.
What game developers aren't doing, is making it so that players need to regularly spend their money. Food. Water. Beer. Whores. Repaired/replaced armour, sharpened swords, Medical Supplies, and so forth.

Whilst i'm on the subject; all of the above listed needs will be included in a 2d mmorpg me and my team are working on ^_^.

[dragnar]

There is nothing inherently wrong with linear gameplay. A good linear RPG would be like a book only with more immersion. The problem is that very few game developers bother with a good story. What they do is more like taking a bad book and adding pictures. It sells, but for how long? Companies releasing massive numbers of bad games is what almost killed gaming in the 80s, and it looks like they are headed that way again.

A game that allows a truly non-linear story is very difficult to create, and is in some ways beyond out current technology. DF is very non-linear, but while you can go around a kill anything you want, you have to make up the story on your own. Eventually Toady plans to add real story, and I guarantee that when he does DF will be the first game to ever pull it off successfully.

The only medium that currently supports what Toady is trying to create is MMOs. Unfortunately, most MMOs ignore this capability, and instead of encouraging players to create stories, they encourage them to kill thousands of monsters for no real reason. I am planning to create a different kind of MMO once I have a bit more experience programming: one with three ways of playing: as a king, noble or worker, as a hero, or as a dungeon master. The story would be created from the interactions between the three.