215 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I somehow missed Icewind Dale back in the day, and I regret it.

Newer games or Indie games are more likely to be something of which I'm not already aware.

I picked up Icewind Dale and it's expansion Heart of Winter back in the day and they are excellent games. It's a bit linear, but the writing is well done. The only downside is that you create an entire party instead of picking up NPCs, so there's a limitation on party interactivity. Overall it's alot of fun for people who like to customize a party, enjoy a fun, traditional fantasy plot and the Infinity Engine in it's hayday. Most of the encounters are quite good too as far as gameplay is concerned, leaving plenty of opportunity for strategic battles. Deffinitely pick this up on Amazon if you can find a copy.

www.gog.com/en/frontpage/

I think Icewind Dale II made the best use of the Inifinity Engine (aside from Baldur's Gate of course).  Great character customization, a good storyline, and very high replay value.  

I'm actually playing through IWD2 right now.  The reason it makes such good use of the Infinity Engine is because by the time IWD2 came out, the engine was outdated.  So you have the ability to do more with the engine, but the engine itself was past its prime.

Anyway, Icewind Dale 2 is one of the longest linear RPGs I've played.  It takes quite a long time to finish, and it has all the good stuff from the first game, like full party creation and control, and the setting is the same.  It does seem like it was stuck in some kind of weird limbo between 2nd and 3.0 edition D&D though, even more so than BG2.  It's nominally 3.0 edition, but there's a lot of holdovers from the previous game, which was second edition.  *shrug*

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

I didn't like full party creation. It stunk of lazy design to me, and I missed the dialog interaction with the NPCs.

[MerinTB]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
I didn't like full party creation. It stunk of lazy design to me, and I missed the dialog interaction with the NPCs.

I'm actually fairly certain it is far more complicated to program, balance and test a game in which the player can build whatever combo of 1-6 characters they want, as opposed to, say, BG or (worse) KotOR/DA:O types where you have the MC being free for the player to design, but all other characters are preset.

The more focus on fewer options for party members, and the less control you have over who those people are and what they can do, the less work goes into making the game.

There's something to say about lines of dialog and having to employ voice actors and such - but you don't have to playtest and balance dialog.


Also - traditional.  Before BG1 the norm for cRPGs was, if you had a party, you made most if not all of the party.

Modifié par MerinTB, 21 septembre 2011 - 07:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Also - traditional.  Before BG1 the norm for cRPGs was, if you had a party, you made most if not all of the party.

Yes.  I want that back.

Some games offer both.  Wizardry 8 had you design 6 characters, with two more spots for NPC party members.  But the best example, I think, is The Dark Heart of Uukrul, in which you designed your entire 4 person party (you were required to have one Warrior, one Thief, one Priest, and one Mage), but the game had permadeath, so you often had to fill empty spots by recruiting at the adventurer's guild..

Pretty soon, all of your original 4 characters were dead, and you were running a party made entirely of hired guild characters.  By the time you were halfway through the game, chances are none of your party members had met anyone who had met any of your original party members.

Great game, though.

[MerinTB]

Wasteland and Temple of Elemental Evil stick out in my mind with the "make most of your party, but recruit a few others as well." I really liked this compromise (and Wasteland was late 80's, so...)

I want to make a party. If I get to recruit some pre-designed party members as well for story and flavor, bonus.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wasteland is a brilliant game. No wonder Black Isle wanted to make a sequel (and when they couldn't get the rights, they just called their game "Fallout").

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Wasteland is a brilliant game. No wonder Black Isle wanted to make a sequel (and when they couldn't get the rights, they just called their game "Fallout").

I know you like Ultima IV... and there is much to admire in that game.
But Wasteland, for me, is the mecca of cRPGs.  I don't think I've played a cRPG that has felt as "perfect" as that one.

[Tommy6860]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

I don't see where you think this works "terrifically" in Oblivion. Any quest you choose, and especially the main quest-line, you have no choice in doing it or not.

Sure you do.  In all the time I played Oblivion, I never even saw the main quest.  To this day I have no idea what it was.

In fact, the event that I think was supposed to be the main plot hook was the worst plot hook I've ever seen.  I'm in prison, and then mysteriously released.  The guy whose prison it was refuses to say why I was in prison.  And then he tells me to travel to a distant city to talk to his Captain of the Guard.

What?  Why would I do that?  That's insane.  So I never went to that city - I made a point of avoiding that city.  I did a lot of stuff, but whatever the main quest-line was, I don't know.
.

HUH?

Well, you misunderstood what I said. You don't have a choice in choosing what you do, is all I meant, not that I was talking about the quality of the story or quests. Yousaid, "It's not just what the character does in the game.  It's why the
character does those things.  Why does your character accept or deny any
given quest?  What are his motives in doing so?  What does he hope to
achieve?  Does this action illustrate any fundamental beliefs or values
the character holds?"

In this I said, you have n o choice, these elements don't exist in the game, therefore, any of the gameplay doesn't offer any of kind of introspection, or what would be the best choice. It was not in any way a RPG other than being able to choose characters classes and tons of stats. You could however choose to do any of the side quests as you please, though, you have no choice in how to do them.


By the way, you oversimplified what happened and you do get more detail in the quests then just some task being handed to you to meet some 'captain' as is explained by the NPCs you engage. But choices within the quests (or any quest really) have no choices where you have any real player agency.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 21 septembre 2011 - 10:15 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tommy6860 wrote...

HUH?

Well, you misunderstood what I said. You don't have a choice in choosing what you do, is all I meant, not that I was talking about the quality of the story or quests. Yousaid, "It's not just what the character does in the game.  It's why the character does those things.  Why does your character accept or deny any given quest?  What are his motives in doing so?  What does he hope to achieve?  Does this action illustrate any fundamental beliefs or values the character holds?"
In this I said, you have no choice, these elements don't exist in the game, therefore, any of the gameplay doesn't offer any of kind of introspection, or what would be the best choice.

The gameplay can't possibly do that, because any specific introspection would be unique to your character.  You have to be the one to provide that.

Oblivion succeeds here because it doesn't reflect that introspection explicitly within the game.  It's not authored content.  It''s emergent content that only really exists in the player's mind, but within the player's mind is where all roleplaying happens.

The PC's personality drives all of those in-game decisions.  That you can choose to accept a quest or not matters, because the possible reasons for accepting a quest are effectively infinite, and entirely up to you.  Each character design will produce a unique mosaic of quests accepted or rejected, quests completed and failed, and the reasons behind each of those.

A game like Mass Effect does not allow that, because the character's behaviour is likely to contradict that mosaic.

[Tommy6860]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wasteland is a brilliant game. No wonder Black Isle wanted to make a sequel (and when they couldn't get the rights, they just called their game "Fallout").

Wasteland one of the best, hard to believe that it hass been 23 years ago when that was released. In reference to your Ulitma IV claim, you said, "Ultima IV is the greatest CRPG ever made", I personally liked VI the best and I haven't played any beyond that. I loved every one from I-VI. Ultima I is what got me started on cRPGs, as I was an avid D&D table top gamer back then. cRPGs pretty much got me away from the D&D table top kind of RPing. I still have a few friends that play the old D&D games and refuse to play cRPGs, they think they are abominations.

[Tommy6860]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

HUH?

Well, you misunderstood what I said. You don't have a choice in choosing what you do, is all I meant, not that I was talking about the quality of the story or quests. Yousaid, "It's not just what the character does in the game.  It's why the character does those things.  Why does your character accept or deny any given quest?  What are his motives in doing so?  What does he hope to achieve?  Does this action illustrate any fundamental beliefs or values the character holds?"
In this I said, you have no choice, these elements don't exist in the game, therefore, any of the gameplay doesn't offer any of kind of introspection, or what would be the best choice.

The gameplay can't possibly do that, because any specific introspection would be unique to your character.  You have to be the one to provide that.

Tell me where you get this introspection because the game doesn't offer me the ability to do that, there is no choice in how to approach the game outside of choosing my class and stats.. I have literally put in over 1000hrs into that game, unless you are playing some other Oblivion?

Oblivion succeeds here because it doesn't reflect that introspection explicitly within the game.  It's not authored content.  It''s emergent content that only really exists in the player's mind, but within the player's mind is where all roleplaying happens.

What role palying are you talking about. What is your definition of role playing in Oblivion. I cannot make chocies that have effects on the story or plot states. I cannot change a direction any quest goes, they are all set in stone. The only choices I have for all quests, except the main quest-line, is to choose to do them or not.

The PC's personality drives all of those in-game decisions.  That you can choose to accept a quest or not matters, because the possible reasons for accepting a quest are effectively infinite, and entirely up to you.  Each character design will produce a unique mosaic of quests accepted or rejected, quests completed and failed, and the reasons behind each of those.

Must be another Oblivion, because you cannot choose within the realm you just listed above, they don't exist outside of actually choosing a quest or not. How does one find introspection by refusing quest, you cannot know anything about it until you accept doing it anyway. Once you accept it, the only thing you can do is ignore it and go on. You cannot go to the quest giver and state a change of mind at the acceptance of the quests, or at any time during said quests. If your imagination does that, well, I don't what to say to that, that is you, but the game does not offer that at all.

A game like Mass Effect does not allow that, because the character's behaviour is likely to contradict that mosaic.

Mass Effect, though lacking in RPing for me as well (ME2 is much worse), Mass Effect has far more player agency than does Oblvion, not counting what I can imagine only.

Anyway, even though you stated Oblivion didn't let on to what you thought you were supposed to be doing, that is only a good thing, if trhe game offered that your choices made differences within the game itself, it doesn't. In Oblivion, you cannot have introspection within the realm of the game playing it out for you, or you role playing it. The game is set in stone with no variation at all. You cannot make choices (I honestly don't see where you get these choices), which would be a prerequisite to having introspection and especailly role palying. Your just forced into doing as the game guides you. Simply deciding to not do som ething in Oblivion, is jsut simply going through the game faste, it doesn't change the game plots. Making choices, IMO, means you have an effect on the story and plot states, not just imagining that. I'd be better off playing a table top RPG for that matter.

What you can do in that maybe you can roleplay (if that is what you want it to be) what you want roaming aorund, but it doesn't change the order in which you have to do things. I would venture to say that DA2 has much more role playing than Oblivion could ever offer. The fact that it has near zero player agency, should give you strong indications of such. The fact that you say that you didn't know what you were doing, doesn't mean your are role playing, they are not all inclusive.

I can just as well sat that Gears Of War, which felt the same way playing it when i started off and pretty much through the game, had me wondering what I should be doing, and that is a shooter.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 21 septembre 2011 - 11:45 .

[saMoorai]

Disgaea 4.

The entire cast of characters is Pure gold.

[Tommy6860]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Wasteland is a brilliant game. No wonder Black Isle wanted to make a sequel (and when they couldn't get the rights, they just called their game "Fallout").

I know you like Ultima IV... and there is much to admire in that game.
But Wasteland, for me, is the mecca of cRPGs.  I don't think I've played a cRPG that has felt as "perfect" as that one.

While Wasteland was a treat, Planescape:Torment was that game for me

[Tommy6860]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
 If your imagination does that, well, I don't what to say to that, that is you, but the game does not offer that at all.

That's what he's saying.

I understand that, but the game does not play that way, and he's making his imagiantion come across that the game does play that way. Here's what he said, "The PC's personality drives all of those in-game decisions." They do not do that "ingame", they can do that out of the game with your mind, if you so please.

Choices have no consequrences or effects on the game itself, unlike msot other RPGs. If you decide not to do a quest, well, that's all there is to it. If that is what RP is, that's fine. An RPG has to be much more than that for me, where my decisions have effects on the game itself and the story. Simply refusing a quest where it changes nothing but shortening that actual time to play the game, is not role playing, IMO.  I guess what I should (rhetorically) ask is, what do those quests actually offer that makes the decision to do a quest, or not, role playing, when the quest are always the same and turn out the same, no different dialogue, or impetus from the game to be cause for decision making? For example, if I turn down the Thieves Guld quest-line, because of my moral compass, it didn't change the game at all, I simply ignored playing that quest. If I chose doing the quest, the quest-line has no possiblity of having a different otucome if I want to apply my moral compass, it ends the same, and my imagination cannot change that for me.

Heck, you coudn't even have party member with you.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 22 septembre 2011 - 12:04 .

[MerinTB]

Tommy6860 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Wasteland is a brilliant game. No wonder Black Isle wanted to make a sequel (and when they couldn't get the rights, they just called their game "Fallout").

I know you like Ultima IV... and there is much to admire in that game.
But Wasteland, for me, is the mecca of cRPGs.  I don't think I've played a cRPG that has felt as "perfect" as that one.

While Wasteland was a treat, Planescape:Torment was that game for me

...

You know, I'm not even going to comment. :innocent:

[Tommy6860]

saMOOrai182 wrote...

Disgaea 4.

The entire cast of characters is Pure gold.

I personally don't like JRPGs myself, though I enjoyed the Zelda series up OOT. I also don't like playing RPGs on consoles, they are too restrictive for my taste, though I did enjoy Oblvion and Fallout 3 on the 360, and KoTOR and Morrowind on the original Xbox..

[Tommy6860]

MerinTB wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Wasteland is a brilliant game. No wonder Black Isle wanted to make a sequel (and when they couldn't get the rights, they just called their game "Fallout").

I know you like Ultima IV... and there is much to admire in that game.
But Wasteland, for me, is the mecca of cRPGs.  I don't think I've played a cRPG that has felt as "perfect" as that one.

While Wasteland was a treat, Planescape:Torment was that game for me

...

You know, I'm not even going to comment. :innocent:

Then you concede

No, but really, I loved Wasteland, it was awesome (I was 28 when that game came out), but PS:T is still my fav all time RPG. Considering it has a set protagonist, something I dislike in a RPG, that game, IMO, has absolutely the best writing and dialogue I have ever experienced in a game before. It was so good for me, as to make the game that special, despite of my dislike for a set protagonist.

[MerinTB]

Tommy6860 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
While Wasteland was a treat, Planescape:Torment was that game for me

...

You know, I'm not even going to comment. :innocent:

Then you concede

No, but really, I loved Wasteland, it was awesome (I was 28 when that game came out), but PS:T is still my fav all time RPG. Considering it has a set protagonist, something I dislike in a RPG, that game, IMO, has absolutely the best writing and dialogue I have ever experienced in a game before. It was so good for me, as to make the game that special, despite of my dislike for a set protagonist.

I love Black Isle.  Trust me, I wanted to love that game.  I came to it late, like 2004 I believe, but I could not get into it.  Sometimes things happen and I like games when I give it another go - Arcanum, for example, I failed to get into twice but the third time was the charm!  I gave NWN 5 goes before finishing the OC and... wait, no, I hate NWN, bad example.

P:ST bored me.  I tried three times, last time was probably about a year ago.  I don't begrudge people liking it - different strokes and all that - but it's slow, ponderous, and I didn't get to make my character.  Where other people found a fascinating world with a compelling story, I found myself not caring about any of it. *shrug*

I can't say I hate the game - it's no NWN - but it does irritate me how often it gets tossed around as the ultimate example of gaming goodness.

[bussinrounds]

MerinTB wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
While Wasteland was a treat, Planescape:Torment was that game for me

...

You know, I'm not even going to comment. :innocent:

Then you concede

No, but really, I loved Wasteland, it was awesome (I was 28 when that game came out), but PS:T is still my fav all time RPG. Considering it has a set protagonist, something I dislike in a RPG, that game, IMO, has absolutely the best writing and dialogue I have ever experienced in a game before. It was so good for me, as to make the game that special, despite of my dislike for a set protagonist.

I love Black Isle.  Trust me, I wanted to love that game.  I came to it late, like 2004 I believe, but I could not get into it.  Sometimes things happen and I like games when I give it another go - Arcanum, for example, I failed to get into twice but the third time was the charm!  I gave NWN 5 goes before finishing the OC and... wait, no, I hate NWN, bad example.

P:ST bored me.  I tried three times, last time was probably about a year ago.  I don't begrudge people liking it - different strokes and all that - but it's slow, ponderous, and I didn't get to make my character.  Where other people found a fascinating world with a compelling story, I found myself not caring about any of it. *shrug*

I can't say I hate the game - it's no NWN - but it does irritate me how often it gets tossed around as the ultimate example of gaming goodness.

    Why did you waste so much time on the terrible NWN oc ?   That game is all about the MP and created content by the community.

[blow978]

Magic Candle
Ravenloft
Eye of the Beholder trilogy

[bussinrounds]

I heard the Ravenloft games had good atmosphere and music.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

MerinTB wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
I didn't like full party creation. It stunk of lazy design to me, and I missed the dialog interaction with the NPCs.

I'm actually fairly certain it is far more complicated to program, balance and test a game in which the player can build whatever combo of 1-6 characters they want, as opposed to, say, BG or (worse) KotOR/DA:O types where you have the MC being free for the player to design, but all other characters are preset.

The more focus on fewer options for party members, and the less control you have over who those people are and what they can do, the less work goes into making the game.

There's something to say about lines of dialog and having to employ voice actors and such - but you don't have to playtest and balance dialog.


Also - traditional.  Before BG1 the norm for cRPGs was, if you had a party, you made most if not all of the party.

In a custom combat system that might be true, but in D&D all the game balance issues are pretty much adressed by the core system.

The reason a traditional D&D game is composed of custom characters is because it's a shared experience. Each player runs, or "role plays" a single character. The same principle just doesn't apply to a SP game (at least not as a role playing game).

I think most of the builders in here will back me up when I say keeping track of dialog variables to the ungodly degree that BG and BG2 did (and to a lesser degree DAO) is a much bigger hassle than planning and balancing encounters. Think about it. The game had a dozen characters each with scores of seperate conversation quest trees. Each conversation tree set a variable that affected future conversations not only with that character but with all the other characters as well. The mic work is nothing. First these conversations have to be meticulously organized. Variables have to be defined and assigned to in-game objects, and the connections between conversations need to be linked together. These documents are huge and extremly complicated in a game like BG and a single mistake can unravel the entire thing.

Once that's done the conversations need to be composed, and the coding begins. Hassles start to pop up when you miss a variable. Or set it incorrectly. Or store or reteive it from the wrong object. Or misspell the name. A good conversation has scores of conversation nodes and each one has to be playtested seperately. Debugging is a nightmare because you're always dealing with at least 2 scripts, often a lot more. Mistakes often manifest themselves over two or more conversations and theres often no way of knowing where the glitch is without modifying the scripts to give you visual markers in-game to help figure out where the problem is. Every once in a while one of these markers slips past the debugging process, making multiple rounds of playtesting even more important.

If you don't think conversations need playtesting I can safely presume you've never written one.

And then there were those magical conversation triggers in BG. The game would check to see what characters were in the party and they would chat or squabble based on the party composition, and these conversations would also be affected by previously set conversation variables.

The BG NPCs were a work of art unrivalled in any RPG to this day. They are the RPG equivelent of the sistine chapel ceiling. I am absolutely certain that the ID devs saved themselves a fortune in development costs by eliminating the need for these complicated dialogs, and the game suffered for the loss. IMO ID isn't really even an RPG which is why they don't appear in my GOGMix. Without all the character interaction between the player and the NPCs (and between the NPCs and one another) ID felt much more to me like an adventure or strategy game than a real RPG.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 22 septembre 2011 - 04:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tommy6860 wrote...

While Wasteland was a treat, Planescape:Torment was that game for me

I'm not surprised.  Torment does the thing that you claim Oblivion doesn't do.  When you make personality decisions for the Nameless One, they explicitly have in-game consequences.

Tommy6860 wrote...

Tell me where you get this introspection because the game doesn't offer me the ability to do that, there is no choice in how to approach the game outside of choosing my class and stats.. I have literally put in over 1000hrs into that game, unless you are playing some other Oblivion?

The problem is that you're waiting for the game to tell you that you've made a decision - you want the game to validate your decisions - and that's never going to happen.

You have choice after choice in Oblivion.  When you first leave the prison, where do you go?  Why?  Oblivion lets you have an incredibly detailed answer to that question, and there's a very good chance it will never contradict you.  So then that character you've designed, with his complex motives for that one action, can go out and do everything else in the game world based on the principles behind that first decision.

Does your character trust the king?  Does he think he was telling the truth, or was he evasive?  How does your character feel about hereditary rulers generally?

The answers to these question inform every decision your character makes in the world, right down to what sort of armour to wear and which questions to ask a random NPC,

What role palying are you talking about. What is your definition of role playing in Oblivion. I cannot make chocies that have effects on the story or plot states.  I cannot change a direction any quest goes, they are all set in stone. The only choices I have for all quests, except the main quest-line, is to choose to do them or not.

But why you do them or not is up to you, and there are effectively infintie choices in between the quests.

How your character reacts to the outcome of one quest can influence his future decisions pertaining to a new quest.

As I mentioned above, you're asking for the game to tell you that you've made an important decision, and it can't do that, because only you can know why or to what degree any decision you made was important.

Must be another Oblivion, because you cannot choose within the realm you just listed above, they don't exist outside of actually choosing a quest or not. How does one find introspection by refusing quest, you cannot know anything about it until you accept doing it anyway. Once you accept it, the only thing you can do is ignore it and go on. You cannot go to the quest giver and state a change of mind at the acceptance of the quests, or at any time during said quests.

What do you mean "once you accept it"?  You've accepted a quest only when your character has agreed to do it.  Whether the game puts the quest in your journal is irrelevant.  Whether your character told the quest-giver he accepted the quest is irrelevant.  Your character could have been lying.  Your character could have just wanted more information, and telling the quest-giver that he accepted the quest was the only way to get that information.

Do you ever know why your character does things?  It sounds like you're just going through the motions of playing the game, making gameplay decisions from the player's perspective.  That's nothing like what I would call roleplaying.

Whether the game allows you to create your character's personality doesn't matter to you, because you never let the character make any decisions himself.

If your imagination does that, well, I don't what to say to that, that is you, but the game does not offer that at all.

Of course it's my imagination.  Roleplaying only ever happens in the player's mind.

Mass Effect, though lacking in RPing for me as well (ME2 is much worse), Mass Effect has far more player agency than does Oblvion, not counting what I can imagine only.

Vastly less.  ME doesn't even let you control what your character says or how he says it.

Anyway, even though you stated Oblivion didn't let on to what you thought you were supposed to be doing, that is only a good thing, if trhe game offered that your choices made differences within the game itself, it doesn't. In Oblivion, you cannot have introspection within the realm of the game playing it out for you, or you role playing it. The game is set in stone with no variation at all. You cannot make choices (I honestly don't see where you get these choices), which would be a prerequisite to having introspection and especailly role palying.

When you start an RPG, when your character is faced with his very first choice, how do you decide what to do?

If you're roleplaying, you should consult that character's personality (designed by you) to see what it is he will do under those circumstances.  And that personality should be able to answer just about any question you ask it.

What you can do in that maybe you can roleplay (if that is what you want it to be) what you want roaming aorund, but it doesn't change the order in which you have to do things.

Why do you have to do anything?  Why do you perceive the game as having a path, or a beginning, middle, and end?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 septembre 2011 - 07:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I think most of the builders in here will back me up when I say keeping track of dialog variables to the ungodly degree that BG and BG2 did (and to a lesser degree DAO) is a much bigger hassle than planning and balancing encounters.

Regardless of whcih approach is easier, I think allowing the player to create the whole party is just better game design.

If joinable companions are more work, then that only strengthens the argument for not having them.