174 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because it's a video game, gameplay always comes first

That's what I'm saying should happen, but these games seem to be designed around lore and story first, and then they have to shoehorn in the gameplay around it.  That's what causes the disconnect.

 

The gameplay should absolutely come first.  But everything else should conform to the gameplay.  And in a roleplaying game, the primary gameplay (arguably all of the gameplay) is roleplaying.

 

If headshots aren't supposed to kill people, then they shouldn't kill people even in cutscenes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because computer RPGs have limitations inherent in the technology used to make them that make it so?

 

Mirroring the lore from a cutscene in the gameplay may also not exactly be very engaging gameplay.

You're designing it backward.  Design the gameplay first, and then write the scenes around those mechanics.

 

If you do it your way, yes, the limitations of the platform are an issue, but doing it mechanics first makes the platform an advantage, not a drawback.  Computers can handle more complicated mechanics than tabletop games can, allowing for more nuanced application.  Then, with the mechanics in place, the story can be written around them (with the computer enforcing them every step of the way).

 

Mirroring the lore from the mechanics in the cutscenes might make for less compelling cutscenes, but that just renders the cutscenes pointless.  We can safely remove them.

[Cainhurst Crow]

You're designing it backward.  Design the gameplay first, and then write the scenes around those mechanics.

 

If you do it your way, yes, the limitations of the platform are an issue, but doing it mechanics first makes the platform an advantage, not a drawback.  Computers can handle more complicated mechanics than tabletop games can, allowing for more nuanced application.  Then, with the mechanics in place, the story can be written around them (with the computer enforcing them every step of the way).

 

Mirroring the lore from the mechanics in the cutscenes might make for less compelling cutscenes, but that just renders the cutscenes pointless.  We can safely remove them.

 

That sounds completely back-asswards. Its easy to shout "make the mechanics first" but then you run into the problem of "what's the game about". You can't just make a bunch of hodgepodge mechanics, then decide to try and fill in the blanks with story. That is how dumb games like mario get made where there is basically no plot and all gameplay.

[AresKeith]

That sounds completely back-asswards. Its easy to shout "make the mechanics first" but then you run into the problem of "what's the game about". You can't just make a bunch of hodgepodge mechanics, then decide to try and fill in the blanks with story. That is how dumb games like mario get made where there is basically no plot and all gameplay.

 

Hey 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd love to know where you got my game design preferences from out of that statement.

You talked about using the lore from the cutscene in the design of the gameplay.

 

I think you should use the mechanics from the gameplay to inform the lore, not the other way around.

[Bob from Accounting]

The gameplay should absolutely come first.  But everything else should conform to the gameplay.  And in a roleplaying game, the primary gameplay (arguably all of the gameplay) is roleplaying.

 

If headshots aren't supposed to kill people, then they shouldn't kill people even in cutscenes.

 

'Gameplay' is a terribly small and limited world, fundamentally shackled to the possibilities of a dozen buttons on a plastic controller.

 

A world where conflict is determined by who has the bazooka with the highest stats attached it to it, instead of a million other rich and meaningful possibilities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That sounds completely back-asswards. Its easy to shout "make the mechanics first" but then you run into the problem of "what's the game about". You can't just make a bunch of hodgepodge mechanics, then decide to try and fill in the blanks with story. That is how dumb games like mario get made where there is basically no plot and all gameplay.

What's any story set in the real world about?  There, the lore is all pre-established (by being reality).  Since stories in the real world can basically be about anything, so can stories in any gameworld with pre-defined mechanics.

 

This is how tabletop games work.  The mechanics come in a book, and the players create stories using those mechanics.

 

Furthermore, there's never any plot until the game gets played.  The game's narrative is the story of the player's choices.  Those choices are informed by gameplay mechanics.  So how does the story work at all if the mechanics don't apply to it?

[AresKeith]

What's any story set in the real world about?  There, the lore is all pre-established (by being reality).  Since stories in the real world can basically be about anything, so can stories in any gameworld with pre-defined mechanics.

 

This is how tabletop games work.  The mechanics come in a book, and the players create stories using those mechanics.

 

Furthermore, there's never any plot until the game gets played.  The game's narrative is the story of the player's choices.  Those choices are informed by gameplay mechanics.  So how does the story work at all if the mechanics don't apply to it?

 

This isn't a tabletop games, these are video games

[Sylvius the Mad]

'Gameplay' is a terribly small and limited world.

 

A world where conflict is determined by who has the bazooka with the highest stats attached it to it, instead of a million other rich and meaningful possibilities.

That would be a remarkably shallow game, mechanically speaking.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No, that's not what I was saying at all. I said mirroring the lore portrayed in cutscenes doesn't make for engaging gameplay. This was really just pointing out that gameplay/story segregation exist for a reason.

But that's an absurd conclusion.

 

If you hold that it's possible for gameplay to be engaging, then it's possible for that to be true even without segregation, as long as we write the cutscenes around the limitations of the gameplay mechanics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This isn't a tabletop games, these are video games

Roleplaying games aren't games at all.

 

The point of a computer roleplaying game, I insist, is to mimic the gameplay of tabletop roleplaying games without the need for other players.  And tabletop roleplaying games are not games.  They are activities, like hiking or stamp collecting.  There's no end point.  There's no victory or defeat.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Na na chill. There's a reason why video games like Mario have stuck around for almost thirty years now. Engaging gameplay mechanics is the reason why this field is what it is in the first place. Yeah, it's story premises are pretty unimaginative but that's the least important part of a video games essence anyway.

 

Mario exists because its easy to get into, because it has no story that needs following, and because the gameplay is simple. Its the same premise as why candy crush or flappy bird or fruit ninja are popular, or were popular. Even a lot of shooters and beat em ups to an extent follow this same principle. Those games have their own genre and they preform in those genres well.

 

Dragon age isn't that genre, its not that type of game, and making it into that type of game would be one of the worst decisions one could make. Dragon age is a story based and story driven game series, thats one of the fundamental good points of this game. To decide to reverse the entire formula for the series would have devastating consequences, and I don't see how anyone could be in favor of such a notion.

[Mr.House]

Roleplaying games aren't games at all.

 

The point of a computer roleplaying game, I insist, is to mimic the gameplay of tabletop roleplaying games without the need for other players.  And tabletop roleplaying games are not games.  They are activities, like hiking or stamp collecting.  There's no end point.  There's no victory or defeat.

What.

[Cainhurst Crow]

What's any story set in the real world about?  There, the lore is all pre-established (by being reality).  Since stories in the real world can basically be about anything, so can stories in any gameworld with pre-defined mechanics.

 

This is how tabletop games work.  The mechanics come in a book, and the players create stories using those mechanics.

 

Furthermore, there's never any plot until the game gets played.  The game's narrative is the story of the player's choices.  Those choices are informed by gameplay mechanics.  So how does the story work at all if the mechanics don't apply to it?

 

One advantage of table top games is you aren't limited in what you can do gamewise and each character basically controls the entire reality of the games world.

 

In a video game you don't have such freedom, and never will. You will always be bound to the limitation of what the creators could or could not account for in the game. I can't complain about not being able to just not save the princess and side with bowser in mario because the creators of the game never decided to have that be a possibility.

 

Now, the reason story and gameplay are segregated is because nobody enjoys playing a game in which one strike from a sword could kill you. If that were the case dark souls would have outsold circles around all other rpg competition, but it did not. Nobody wants a game where their character is auto-controlled for chosing a certain class, as is the case for being a mage and possibly falling to demonic influence. And again, there isn't going to be some questline you and the DM discussed to help get your character back or discuss the ramifications of this stuff before hand. Its you, and an AI DM, following commands written for it, with no empathy or even ability to precieve your complaints against it. That is why the devs make gameplay exceptions to lore, becaue they want people to have fun playing the game.

 

Roleplaying games aren't games at all.
 
The point of a computer roleplaying game, I insist, is to mimic the gameplay of tabletop roleplaying games without the need for other players.  And tabletop roleplaying games are not games.  They are activities, like hiking or stamp collecting.  There's no end point.  There's no victory or defeat.

 

You are highly mistaken in what a video game roleplay is. They are a choose your own adventure book, with on the rails stories, and a host of activities to distract you from the fact that your decisions were mapped out ahead of time, and you are only being allowed to choose what path you go down.

 

In RPG's you have more freedom, sure, but lets not pretend that there isn't a fundamental difference between tabletop games and role playing video games. You can't negotiate with the leader of the campaign for your character to fit in the story, nor can you have any sort of dialouge about the plot. ITs preset, these are your choices, follow them or do not play.

[Wulfram]

IIRC DnD has a rule that allows for instant kills when the opponent is in no position to fight back.  It's not unreasonable to think the same would apply to CRPGs, even if it's not formalised because such situations are covered by cutscenes.

[Cainhurst Crow]

But what if that's not telling the story the developers are trying to achieve? I saw a gunshot example earlier so I'll try to explain it using that:

 

Using a more realistic world like GTA, a shootout in a cutscene isn't designed to be a long, drawn out affair. So the laws of its more realistic world will be more heavily enforced to move the story along. AKA: No one's surviving a gunshot to the head.

 

But when the gameplay comes around, a long, drawn out affair may be exactly what you're looking for to a certain extent to keep the challenge fun enough for the player. Maybe enemies will survive a few more gunshots then realistically possible as portrayed in the cutscene. 

 

In this case, its not necessarily a case of limitation but making sure the combat mechanics are fun.

 

Sometimes the gameplay just has to step on the lore to be engaging. Well, maybe a lot of times.

 

Nobody wants to play a GTA where you can't lower your wanted level ever, and die within one or two hits.

[Vicious]

This is a great feature, as long as you can tell them to shut up.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fair enough I guess, though I always found mario to be a dumb game that was fun to play, much like sonic or smash brothers. That's just who I was at a kid, the one who accepts things are dumb because its still fun to do and didn't take them at all seriously, even in a competition sense.

[Nightwriter]

Player-opted companion interjection, and automatic companion interjection, are both features I really would like to see in my game.

 

Both have their place. Sometimes it makes sense for the player character to make the decision to exploit knowledge or input the party can offer, and sometimes it makes sense for a companion to refuse to be silent on an issue (or to speak up for a harmless passing comment without requiring player permission).

 

I wouldn't like to see these two features juxtaposed, though I realize they involve two very common fan desires bumping heads: the desire for player control, and the desire for independent lifelike companions who are more than simple satellites orbiting the player.