215 réponses à ce sujet

[Wozearly]

Kinda get the feeling I'm going to end up repeating old ground here, but just to add weight to some earlier suggestions;

The Divine Divinity series is definitely worth a look - DD and BD might be slight wind-ups to you because of the partly-voiced character and comparative lack of things to do that are truly freeform, so I agree with Deviija that Divinity 2 is probably your best bet.

If you liked Oblivion for being quite freeform, you'll absolutely love Morrowind if you haven't picked it up yet (IMO, it did it better, and the world is more interesting) - particularly if you spend some time grabbing some of the absolute plethora of mods that exist for it. The best ones add a heck of a lot to it.

I'd also give a major nod to the page 1 suggestion of the Paradox Interactive strategy games, as examples of another genre that doesn't railroad you overmuch. They're not RPGs, but I think they might appeal to your desire not to be constrained by what the developer thinks you should do.

Mount and Blade was mentioned earlier - if you get M&B and/or its expansion Warband, be sure to look up the Native Expansion mod, which lobs in a few more things of interest from a freeform approach.

Quite honestly, I'm struggling to think of others that haven't been mentioned already, annoyingly. There are a ton of (IMO) very good games lurking out there, but very few that intentionally build a freeform design into the mix.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wozearly wrote...

There are a ton of (IMO) very good games lurking out there, but very few that intentionally build a freeform design into the mix.

Luckily, such design doesn't need to be intentional.  I don't think BioWare has ever intentionally allowed free-form roleplaying, and yet their games have doen so several times.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wozearly wrote...

There are a ton of (IMO) very good games lurking out there, but very few that intentionally build a freeform design into the mix.

Luckily, such design doesn't need to be intentional.  I don't think BioWare has ever intentionally allowed free-form roleplaying, and yet their games have doen so several times.

I very much agree - it was never a design intention of their's to allow for open world... but the nature of "exploring" in old school cRPGs kinda forced it on them in the earlier games.

[Mark of the Dragon]

Kingdom of Amalur and Dragon's Dogma when they come out. I know that Amalur has a silent PC not quite sure for Dragon's Dogma though.

[Wozearly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Luckily, such design doesn't need to be intentional.  I don't think BioWare has ever intentionally allowed free-form roleplaying, and yet their games have doen so several times.

True, although I was actually thinking of the reverse. That most games actually design it out in favour of a more linear, or specifically branched storyline, where the player is playing a specific role and taking a specific journey for specific motivations, as designed by the developers.

Speaking personally, I don't actually mind this when its pulled off successfully or believably, or where the illusion of choice is sufficiently well done that I still feel that it was 'my' character at the end of it, with the motivations and decisions I gave him/her.

Or those rare situations where the character and game mesh so perfectly that I can actually enjoy being who they are, rather than who I want them to be. The only series leaping specifically to mind on that score is Thief, although The Witcher has taken some decent steps in the right direction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wozearly wrote...

True, although I was actually thinking of the reverse. That most games actually design it out in favour of a more linear, or specifically branched storyline, where the player is playing a specific role and taking a specific journey for specific motivations, as designed by the developers.

I insist that cannot be roleplaying.  It can work in tabletop, where every detail and nuance is available to the player to find his roleplaying space within that restrictive design (this is how roleplaying tournaments typically worked), but in a CRPG there's just no way for the player to play his character coherently in such a game.

Or those rare situations where the character and game mesh so perfectly that I can actually enjoy being who they are, rather than who I want them to be. The only series leaping specifically to mind on that score is Thief, although The Witcher has taken some decent steps in the right direction.

Unfortunately, that means that every game would necessarily alienate some players, as there is no character that all players want to play.

That's kind of the point of roleplaying.  You get a protogonist you like.  You're guaranteed to like him, because you created him.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's kind of the point of roleplaying.  You get a protogonist you like.  You're guaranteed to like him, because you created him.

So much this.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's kind of the point of roleplaying.  You get a protogonist you like.  You're guaranteed to like him, because you created him.

I actually disagree with this.  I've played characters whose actions and personalities I find abhorrent personally.  One of my favorite playthroughs of DA was actually with a mage who manipulated Alistar into loving her after she found out he was heir to the throne.  She intended to have his child, off Alistair (and any other potential heirs), set herself up as regent for her child and seize all power in Ferelden.

I didn't like her at all.  But she was fun and interesting to play.

So, if you changed your statement to be "You get a protagonist you find interesing." then I would agree with you.

[MerinTB]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's kind of the point of roleplaying.  You get a protogonist you like.  You're guaranteed to like him, because you created him.

I actually disagree with this.  I've played characters whose actions and personalities I find abhorrent personally.  One of my favorite playthroughs of DA was actually with a mage who manipulated Alistar into loving her after she found out he was heir to the throne.  She intended to have his child, off Alistair (and any other potential heirs), set herself up as regent for her child and seize all power in Ferelden.

I didn't like her at all.  But she was fun and interesting to play.

So, if you changed your statement to be "You get a protagonist you find interesing." then I would agree with you.

You're either misunderstanding or twisting his words.

You "liked" your character.  You enjoyed playing the character.  It was exactly as you wanted the character to be.

I don't think Sylvius meant, and certainly I didn'tn when I agreed with him, that you "wanted to be friends with" and found the character "someone you personally find  to be a good person."

You made the character that way, to be abhorrent to your sensibilities, and you (as you said) found her "fun and interesting to play."

Take Hawke, instead.  I didn't like playing Hawke, as in "didn't find him/her fun and interesting" because Hawke's personality kept diverging from what I was trying to make said personality to be.

You are being confused or obtuse on the use of the word "like."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Reading it back, I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

Vael's right with regard to the interestingness of playing a given character, and Marin is correct as to what I meant by "like".

[Johnsen1972]

did you try Deus Ex Human Revolution?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I haven't played any of the Deus Ex games.

[Vaeliorin]

MerinTB wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's kind of the point of roleplaying.  You get a protogonist you like.  You're guaranteed to like him, because you created him.

I actually disagree with this.  I've played characters whose actions and personalities I find abhorrent personally.  One of my favorite playthroughs of DA was actually with a mage who manipulated Alistar into loving her after she found out he was heir to the throne.  She intended to have his child, off Alistair (and any other potential heirs), set herself up as regent for her child and seize all power in Ferelden.

I didn't like her at all.  But she was fun and interesting to play.

So, if you changed your statement to be "You get a protagonist you find interesing." then I would agree with you.

You're either misunderstanding or twisting his words.

You "liked" your character.  You enjoyed playing the character.  It was exactly as you wanted the character to be.

I don't think Sylvius meant, and certainly I didn'tn when I agreed with him, that you "wanted to be friends with" and found the character "someone you personally find  to be a good person."

You made the character that way, to be abhorrent to your sensibilities, and you (as you said) found her "fun and interesting to play."

Take Hawke, instead.  I didn't like playing Hawke, as in "didn't find him/her fun and interesting" because Hawke's personality kept diverging from what I was trying to make said personality to be.

You are being confused or obtuse on the use of the word "like."

I thought I knew what he was going for.  I just thought he phrased it poorly, and wanted him to clarify what he actually meant, particularly before someone unfriendly came along and attacked it.

Aren't I allowed to argue semantics, too?  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Aren't I allowed to argue semantics, too?

No, you are.

[MerinTB]

Vaeliorin wrote...
I thought I knew what he was going for.  I just thought he phrased it poorly, and wanted him to clarify what he actually meant, particularly before someone unfriendly came along and attacked it.

Aren't I allowed to argue semantics, too?  

Fair enough.

I wasn't sure what you meant, either, hence why I was using "either this or that" instead of just calling you out as someone twisting his words.

So, we're all on the same page.  I think it's a good page to be on.

[Wozearly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I insist that cannot be roleplaying.  It can work in tabletop, where every detail and nuance is available to the player to find his roleplaying space within that restrictive design (this is how roleplaying tournaments typically worked), but in a CRPG there's just no way for the player to play his character coherently in such a game.

Interesting. My gut reaction was to disagree, at least in part, but actually thinking about it I'm not convinced you're wrong. The challenge that sprang to my mind was that there's no reason a game can't demonstrate the PC's motivations and values early and completely enough to avoid future feelings of "wait a minute, why is he acting like that?"

Then I tried to think of a game that did that well and realised that my examples were (IMO) great games, but...not exactly roleplaying games. The player was required to act 'as' the PC, but not act 'for' the PC for the overwhelming majority of time. 

Unfortunately, that means that every game would necessarily alienate some players, as there is no character that all players want to play.

That's kind of the point of roleplaying.  You get a protogonist you like.  You're guaranteed to like him, because you created him.

Reminds me of the eight deadly words: "I don't care what happens to these people." As a side note, one of the grumbles I had with DA2, Hawke especially...however, I agree. If you don't have much ability to really shape and influence 'your' character, then sooner or later it won't feel like 'yours', and then the immersion is lost.

Dammit, Sylvius, you're not supposed to be converting me to your way of thinking here!