casadechrisso wrote...
That Obsidian showed how much Beth games can be improved with a little more care for the writing was what really made it stand out.
Modifié par Il Divo, 13 janvier 2012 - 07:31 .
Is that so hard? I understand the point you're making, but this just doesn't seem like a good example to me. The college quest line is most naturally set up and most rewarding if played as a mage character. They just decided not to limit it to a mage, just as they leave open the crafting skills to any "class." This gives a wide open field of character builds. If you want to play a magnificent bastard who is out to get power, then you should be able to fenagle your way in to an archmage appointment if you want to. The game rewards natural, logical roleplay, while keeping possibilities open for off the wall type characters. That is the best kind of game IMO. And Skyrim does it so beautifully.Il Divo wrote...
That's the problem. Can be. People have thrown out the possibility that the reason the Dragonborn is chosen is due to being in command of a unique ability. This ignores that 1) you do not need to be identified as Dragonborn to complete the questline and 2) that this reason is not supplied by any of the characters. Instead we are forced to imagine why this might be the case, according to some criteria which is not presented. And as I said before, we shouldn't be guessing the npc's motivations, when it apparently contradicts the nature of the Arch-Mage position.
google_calasade wrote...
Il Divo wrote...
...If your counter for why the character can so easily join (and master) the College of Winterhold is "don't break role-playing", then the game has screwed up in its efforts to simulate a coherent game world. A DM will never let you break the setting. The game world shouldn't either. The onus should not be on the player to ensure setting consistency, or to imagine explanations for the game's narrative. The game is aware of this in preventing the player from joining both the Stormcloaks and Imperials, in its crime system, etc. It should be aware of this with the College of Winterhold as well. Role-playing is fundamentally built on how the game restricts you, much like with the boulder.
That was an exemplary explanation (perhaps the best I've seen in these forums) of what role-playing is built around and how it works.
nobody should have to grind in a single player game (which you basically don't), Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 13 janvier 2012 - 07:51 .
JohnEpler wrote...
My concern with that particular version of it was that, after a certain point, water and food became so easy to find that it just became an annoyance. But yes, it was one of the few places it's been used and I thought it added a lot to the game early on.
Gotholhorakh wrote...
google_calasade wrote...
Il Divo wrote...
...If your counter for why the character can so easily join (and master) the College of Winterhold is "don't break role-playing", then the game has screwed up in its efforts to simulate a coherent game world. A DM will never let you break the setting. The game world shouldn't either. The onus should not be on the player to ensure setting consistency, or to imagine explanations for the game's narrative. The game is aware of this in preventing the player from joining both the Stormcloaks and Imperials, in its crime system, etc. It should be aware of this with the College of Winterhold as well. Role-playing is fundamentally built on how the game restricts you, much like with the boulder.
That was an exemplary explanation (perhaps the best I've seen in these forums) of what role-playing is built around and how it works.
Agreed.
Like many other things in TES, the ability to become the leader of a guild before you're really fit to work sweeping their floors carries the impression of something originally conceived (some time ago now) as a 300-hour task, brought in to be attainable on a fairly casual basis. This is the way the skills and stats work, too - Bethesda slightly neglect specific "career paths", demands of advancement and consequences of your actions in order to let you have everything all at once if you want it.
This cake-and-eat-it philosophy is a recurring theme in the TES games and routinely its (what we're calling) simishness is broken in a way that caters to our impatient side.
My wild guess would be that they think:
a) it makes the world seem more full of things to do more of the time (which I think it probably does), and that
but it does come at the cost of some pretty hefty suspension of disbelief.
To bugger up your analogy slightly, and then beg forgiveness, I think the TES GM kind of tends to say "ah screw it, you're here to have fun anyway, who am I to spoil it. You try to lift the boulder, and discover it's made of polystyrene. Underneath it is an enormous pile of lollipops and gold".
Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 08:01 .
google_calasade wrote...
JohnEpler wrote...
My concern with that particular version of it was that, after a certain point, water and food became so easy to find that it just became an annoyance. But yes, it was one of the few places it's been used and I thought it added a lot to the game early on.
I think is actually a good, general example regarding some of what we're talking about. If something becomes too easy, it's an annoyance. If there's a challenge in it, however, the annoyance ceases and becomes an obstacle to overcome. That won't work for all things, of course, but I think it's a valid point developers need to keep in mind.
Guest_Puddi III_*
Ringo12 wrote...
KnightofPhoenix wrote...
In the meantime, I'll just go enjoy my "sexist rpg" because of my deeply in-rooted secret misogyny (please do come up with something new, this is getting boringly silly).
Are the DA2 fanatics still saying Witcher 2 is sexist? It's like games aren't allowed to show a realistic world yet a book, movie or tv show is fine.
Another thing I hope Bioware looks at are Deus Ex persuasion system. Really great and since DA2 doesn't even have a coercion skill it would definitely add a lot.
Filament wrote...
I will say that if the spirit meter got promoted from minor annoyance to a genuine obstacle in Mask of the Betrayer, I would not see that as an improvement. Being able to minimize it is the only thing that made it tolerable.
JohnEpler wrote...
google_calasade wrote...
I think is actually a good, general example regarding some of what we're talking about. If something becomes too easy, it's an annoyance. If there's a challenge in it, however, the annoyance ceases and becomes an obstacle to overcome. That won't work for all things, of course, but I think it's a valid point developers need to keep in mind.
Yes, exactly. If something is an interesting and it's, as you say, an obstacle to overcome - that's something worthwhile. You still have to consider how it fits into your overall design philosophy, of course, but the sense of defeating a challenge is part of what makes games interesting and worthwhile as a leisure activity.
If you're not planning on making something difficult, but instead leaving it at the level of an irritant - it's probably best to avoid it altogether. It might just be a minor annoyance, but enough minor annoyances can severely impact one's gaming experience. Weight systems offer a perfect example of this. In STALKER (take a drink), they put enough work into the weight system (giving bullets, food, bandages and medkits weight) that it became a part of the game. Your carrying capacity was low enough that you had to put thought into what you took on each of your excursions, and the idea of a 'home base' where you kept your extra equipment added something tangible to the experience.
Other games with weight limits, however, where you don't really need to focus all that much on what you're carrying except when you're leaving an area to sell all the neat stuff you acquired feel like the weight limit is more of an annoyance than anything. Which is, I think, a good example of the difference between taking a feature and weaving it into the experience, as opposed to adding a feature that doesn't really mesh all that well with the rest of the game.
Il Divo wrote...
casadechrisso wrote...
That Obsidian showed how much Beth games can be improved with a little more care for the writing was what really made it stand out.
Agreed. First meeting Caesar? Absolutely priceless.
google_calasade wrote...
And because you were not forced to work for it, those lollipops do not taste as sweet and the gold does not shine as it should. Enough of that and you end up with a game that is not rewarding. When there is no reward of accomplishment, there is no real encouragement to play or recommend the game to others.
FYI, II Devo was originally talking about DA 2 as well, and pointed out role-playing errors made by both Skyrim and DA 2. I state this because I wanted people to know Skyrim was not getting targeted nor was DA 2 specifically but that the conversation was about RPG in general and those games used as examples.
Addai67 wrote...
If you want to play a magnificent bastard who is out to get power, then you should be able to fenagle your way in to an archmage appointment if you want to..
google_calasade wrote...
How can you not care for challenge? I don't know if I've ever seen someone state something like that, so I'm curious, what would be the point of trying to be successful at playing the game? Are you into gaming mainly for the stories, perhaps the scenery?
Pzykozis wrote...
Anyway that aside the game has to remember its a game with a varied audience it may not feel rewarding or somehow coherent to a certain subset of people but judging by the general feedback to skyrim the majoirty of folks are happy it didn't restrict their content.
Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 08:47 .
google_calasade wrote...
I have to head out the door so I don't have the time right now to respond to all of your very well written post, but even as the wife hollers up the stairs, "What the hell are you doing? We'll be late." I must respond to this.
No offense, but the game does not have to remember its a game with a varied audience. That's where a game gets into trouble because the developers compromise the game's integrity. We've seen what happens when a game (DA 2) tries to appeal to everyone and becomes a shadow of its former self (DA:O). We've also seen what happens when a game (TW 2) keeps the integrity of the original (TW) without pandering. BG 1 to BG 2 would also be another good example of the latter.
Note, none of the above games are perfect. I use them simply as a quick example. Have to run. BBL.
google_calasade wrote...
JohnEpler wrote...
google_calasade wrote...
I think is actually a good, general example regarding some of what we're talking about. If something becomes too easy, it's an annoyance. If there's a challenge in it, however, the annoyance ceases and becomes an obstacle to overcome. That won't work for all things, of course, but I think it's a valid point developers need to keep in mind.
Yes, exactly. If something is an interesting and it's, as you say, an obstacle to overcome - that's something worthwhile. You still have to consider how it fits into your overall design philosophy, of course, but the sense of defeating a challenge is part of what makes games interesting and worthwhile as a leisure activity.
If you're not planning on making something difficult, but instead leaving it at the level of an irritant - it's probably best to avoid it altogether. It might just be a minor annoyance, but enough minor annoyances can severely impact one's gaming experience. Weight systems offer a perfect example of this. In STALKER (take a drink), they put enough work into the weight system (giving bullets, food, bandages and medkits weight) that it became a part of the game. Your carrying capacity was low enough that you had to put thought into what you took on each of your excursions, and the idea of a 'home base' where you kept your extra equipment added something tangible to the experience.
Other games with weight limits, however, where you don't really need to focus all that much on what you're carrying except when you're leaving an area to sell all the neat stuff you acquired feel like the weight limit is more of an annoyance than anything. Which is, I think, a good example of the difference between taking a feature and weaving it into the experience, as opposed to adding a feature that doesn't really mesh all that well with the rest of the game.
THAT -- the weight limits -- hits the proverbial nail right on its head, and it's a good example because weight limits are so often misused. I can think of several games where this is the case and those limits don't serve as an experience or challenge but as a really abrasive nuisance.
So? If it works for you, why not? If it breaks your game, then here's the million dollar takeaway... don't play it that way. Why that is so hard, I suppose I'll never understand.In Exile wrote...
Addai67 wrote...
If you want to play a magnificent bastard who is out to get power, then you should be able to fenagle your way in to an archmage appointment if you want to..
The problem is that you can play the interdimensional alien prepping the world for invasion using your mind control techniques to give everyone the impression that you're qualified. These kind of open-ended schemes are literally reconceilable with any kind of insane scenario. This is why they are anti-role playing.
You do work for it. The college quest line did seem short, but there was still a lot of fighting, exploring and *cringe* puzzling to get there, and it only really made sense if you were a mage. If people can't see that and shape their own story in a way that makes sense to them, then I don't really have any sympathy. It doesn't treat the player as a "casual," it treats them as someone who is capable of making a character story that is compelling and logical for them. Since that is not going to be the same for every player, Bethesda leaves things more open. This drive to want to put alleyways on players is just... maddening.google_calasade wrote...
And because you were not forced to work for it, those lollipops do not taste as sweet and the gold does not shine as it should.
Modifié par Addai67, 13 janvier 2012 - 10:03 .
Addai67 wrote...
So? If it works for you, why not? If it breaks your game, then here's the million dollar takeaway... don't play it that way. Why that is so hard, I suppose I'll never understand.
Modifié par In Exile, 13 janvier 2012 - 10:44 .
Addai67 wrote...
It doesn't treat the player as a "casual," it treats them as someone who is capable of making a character story that is compelling and logical for them. Since that is not going to be the same for every player, Bethesda leaves things more open. This drive to want to put alleyways on players is just... maddening.
Addai67 wrote...
The game rewards natural, logical roleplay, while keeping possibilities open for off the wall type characters. That is the best kind of game IMO. And Skyrim does it so beautifully.
Wulfram wrote...
Addai67 wrote...
The game
rewards natural, logical roleplay, while keeping possibilities open for
off the wall type characters. That is the best kind of game IMO. And
Skyrim does it so beautifully.
I find natural, logical
roleplay extremely difficult in Skyrim. In a large part because the
game practically forces you into taking up high ranking positions almost
immediately. But if you let it, then the game starts to become
farcical because no one except the occasional guard cares one jot that
you're Arch Mage and Harbinger and Hero of Skyrim. The only way to
avoid this is to break away from the various quest lines - which also
makes no real sense, because the quest lines tend not to include many
sensible occasions to break off and do other things.
In Exile wrote...
Addai67 wrote...
So? If it works for you, why not? If it breaks your game, then here's the million dollar takeaway... don't play it that way. Why that is so hard, I suppose I'll never understand.
What's hard to understand is why, after all the times we've talked about this, you've never made the effort to understand my gaming preference.
I don't want make-believe fantasy. I want a reactive world. If there's no in-game reaction to what I do so that my choice is as consistent with a Xanatos Roullete as it is with a setting-breaking alien invasion, then the game has no meaningful RPG features.
The fact that you want make-believe in your games is fine; I can play DA:O & other Bioware games and you can play TES games. But at the very least acknowledge that there is another way to play the game, and that there is a difference between content being in the game and it being technically possible for you to imagine that the content could have happened.
Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 13 janvier 2012 - 11:03 .
In Exile wrote...
Addai67 wrote...
So? If it works for you, why not? If it breaks your game, then here's the million dollar takeaway... don't play it that way. Why that is so hard, I suppose I'll never understand.
What's hard to understand is why, after all the times we've talked about this, you've never made the effort to understand my gaming preference.
I don't want make-believe fantasy. I want a reactive world. If there's no in-game reaction to what I do so that my choice is as consistent with a Xanatos Roullete as it is with a setting-breaking alien invasion, then the game has no meaningful RPG features for me.
It's up to the player to help make the world coherent. This sort of game is a two-way street.In Exile wrote...
This nonsense about "alleyways" and "causal" is just insulting and irrelevant. The only point at issue is creating a coherent world. If you think that an RPG is all about make believe, then that's fine. But that doesn't mean that this is the only way to RP, or that a game can't possibly have meaningful features unless it's all about make-believe.
The fact that your favourite part of an RPG is fan fiction doesn't mean an RPG is the same thing as fan fiction.
Retour en haut