106 réponses à ce sujet

[9TailsFox]

Bethesda games have story content?

Yes. And less fetch quest.

[Steelcan]

with Fallout 4 moving towards a voiced protagonist and greater defintion (presumably) I wonder if this will come with a renewed focus on story.

 

If so it'll be interesting to see how well they do it.  BioWare has already been bested once in terms of open world + story content by the Witcher 3, if FO4 also outdoes them I'll be curious to see what direction they go in next.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They still haven't done this for DAI? I thought you met a dev and he said it was going to be out there.

Two of them, minutes apart, gave different answers that question.

Neither one has proven correct.

[Sylvius the Mad]

with Fallout 4 moving towards a voiced protagonist and greater defintion (presumably) I wonder if this will come with a renewed focus on story.

If so it'll be interesting to see how well they do it. BioWare has already been bested once in terms of open world + story content by the Witcher 3, if FO4 also outdoes them I'll be curious to see what direction they go in next.

Hopefully toward a focus on roleplaying, something CDPR has completely ignored and Bethesda has historically done well (largely because of their blank slate protagonists).

[Sylvius the Mad]

You need to play Dark Souls.

I hate action games.

You're not "compiling metagame data," you're learning. You trial and error your way to the best strategies as the game is happening.

Trial and error is an irritating way to learn anything, especially when the answers are right there in the game's code.

That's what "playing a game," means.

I have no interest in playing a game. I want to playba character, and in order to do that I need to know the rules of the world in which he lives.

Besides, by the time you reach the "point of no return" with your abilities, many RPGs offer some respec option.

I dislike respeccing, and will never do it without an in-setting explanation for why it works.

I shouldn't need pamphlets to understand the best way to play a game; that's terrible design. Show, don't tell or in the case of games; do, don't show. Sure, let us play around with the character classes a bit before forcing us choose one, but the idea that written rules are fundamentally necessary to a game is absurd.

I didn't say you need them. I need them.

I cannot enjoy a game until I have a full understanding of its rules.

The time spent learning the rules inside the game risks ruining the game by spoiling it for me before I get a chance to create my actual character.

[Pasquale1234]

Hopefully toward a focus on roleplaying, something CDPR has completely ignored and Bethesda has historically done well (largely because of their blank slate protagonists).

The beauty of a Bethesda game, imo, is that the prepared story provides some structure for those who want an end goal defined, while also supplying an open world and side content to explore and use to define and express your character while creating your own story.

The game doesn't interfere with my efforts to play my character.

Contrast that with something like ME3, where the devs define and play the character, and my involvement is limited to a few dialogue choices, whether to engage optional side content, and combat.

[In Exile]

The beauty of a Bethesda game, imo, is that the prepared story provides some structure for those who want an end goal defined, while also supplying an open world and side content to explore and use to define and express your character while creating your own story.

The game doesn't interfere with my efforts to play my character.

Contrast that with something like ME3, where the devs define and play the character, and my involvement is limited to a few dialogue choices, whether to engage optional side content, and combat.

 

It really doesn't at all. I don't want to disparage your taste - but they do mislead you into thinking that Bestheda offers any meaningful structure or content for someone who isn't interested in headcanon, to the extent that every character is (in how the game treats you) almost if not often identical (particularly post Morrowind).

[DEUGH Man]

I say they troll the fanbase. Have a charcter that looks exactly like Liara step out of something that looks like a preservation pod, only to have the player realize in-game that it's a random cutscene, and that's what people normally sleep in. Have a character give an awesome monolouge in the game, only to give him two minutes of screen time, and three lines, none of which are the monolouge. Set up a conflict that seems super important, only to have it resolved in the first 15 minutes of the game. Promote the character as a petitie woman, then make the main character a huge dude.

 

People would either find it the funniest marketing campaign of all time, or the absolute worst.

[Pasquale1234]

It really doesn't at all. I don't want to disparage your taste - but they do mislead you into thinking that Bestheda offers any meaningful structure or content for someone who isn't interested in headcanon, to the extent that every character is (in how the game treats you) almost if not often identical (particularly post Morrowind).

I don't get too fussed about how the game world treats my character. Spend much time around other people on any given day, and it's a pretty safe bet that some of them are going to misinterpret something you say or do. At least that's my experience.

Really, all you need to do is read some of the more contentious threads in this very forum to see all the assumptions and judgements made about other people's motives.

[In Exile]

I don't get too fussed about how the game world treats my character. Spend much time around other people on any given day, and it's a pretty safe bet that some of them are going to misinterpret something you say or do. At least that's my experience.

Really, all you need to do is read some of the more contentious threads in this very forum to see all the assumptions and judgements made about other people's motives.

 

It's not really about misinterpretation (though I'll note IRL we often can clarify these apparent misinterpretations). What I'm talking about is that the game doesn't actually acknowledge your character. The game has room for a quest-executing killbot, but there's no reaction to the killbot as a person. More importantly, even if people misinterpret you (and I'm not really talking about speech so much as general reactions), they're still reacting to you. Let me try this analogy.

 

Icewind Dale is written for a player-created party. No individual character "exists" as an entity in the plot, because the whole story reacts to the party. You can invent headcanons for your various player-created PCs, but they game world isn't designed to recognize them as individuals.

 

DA:O - with the origins, among other things - tries very hard to make your PC part of the world. You now have a background, a tie to where you come from that people react to and address. In DA:I, Bioware adds more personal dimensions - people solicit your views and beliefs very often, and you get to react with some emotional variety. You get to be expressive, rather than just making a series of inquisitive and declarative statements.

 

In TES games, you're basically divorced from the whole plot. You're just a player sized peg, and the intricacies of the peg are irrelevant. Fallout actually tries to tie you to the world a lot more. You're a vault dweller, you have a father, etc. The actual gameworld itself, though, doesn't really react to you beyond a simple moral scale.

 

Let's use NV as a contrast. Your background - before the DLC - is really ambiguous. But the game world - albeit in some limit ways, and never on a personal level - reacts to the choices you make and the factions you ally.

 

To me, RP is primarily about the interpersonal and the expressive - expressing beliefs, expressing emotions, building relationships with people. That's fun. Next, it's plot reactive stuff. Allying with this group, making enemies of that other group, etc. Only last - and absolutely at the bottom - is it about inventing stuff that will never be shown in-game.

 

Bestheda is really, really bad at the interpersonal and expressive, pretty bad at the reactive stuff, and really good at the last part, but only because of how empty their world turns out to be vis-a-vis interaction. This is where I come back to Icewind Dale. You can create a lot of headcanon for the PCs you create, because the game just doesn't recognize them as individuals. To me, that's a flaw, not a feature. Because while I like writing, I love inventing scenarios and stories, RPGs don't let you do any of that - you're totally restricted in the actual story, people, etc. you meet. All you get is to invent stuff about yourself (qua PC) that no one will ever engage with or acknowledge. To me, that's not good.
 

[Broganisity]

Building characters is the best part of these games, if the mechanics are sufficiently well documented.

If not, then it becomes guesswork, and it's not fun anymore.

You and I are opposites of the spectrum, my good man:

You are the tactician; the strategist. You study, plan, and calculate well in advance to the scenario taking place. You use words like 'Math' 'Builds' and 'Composition' when talking about gameplay. When you hear the words 'Action RPG'  you think of a game where the RPG takes precidence over the action, like the older concepts of the RPG. An example may be a game like Divinity: Original Sin. You take satisfaction in triumphing through knowledge, statistical superiority, and knowing how every little thing works. You probably like tabletops, where you can sit down and create a character at the very beginning.

I am the soldier; the vanguard. I charge in and operate in the moment, needing only a small period to familiarize myself with the core basics. I talk about 'how cool this is' when talking about gameplay. When I hear the words 'Action RPG' I think of a game where the action takes precedence over the concept of the RPG. An example may be a game like Dragon's Dogma. I take satisfaction in triumphing through skill over 'numbers', and when it comes to 'knowing things' I only need to know what I use, and what I am using it against. I detest tabletops, as I would much prefer to wade into the action and not sit around setting 'how many points are in my lockpicking and hygiene skills'.

But- we're still RPGers at heart, even if we'll be butting heads until the end of time!

[Giantdeathrobot]

You and I are opposites of the spectrum, my good man:

You are the tactician; the strategist. You study, plan, and calculate well in advance to the scenario taking place. You use words like 'Math' 'Builds' and 'Composition' when talking about gameplay. When you hear the words 'Action RPG'  you think of a game where the RPG takes precidence over the action, like the older concepts of the RPG. An example may be a game like Divinity: Original Sin. You take satisfaction in triumphing through knowledge, statistical superiority, and knowing how every little thing works. You probably like tabletops, where you can sit down and create a character at the very beginning.

I am the soldier; the vanguard. I charge in and operate in the moment, needing only a small period to familiarize myself with the core basics. I talk about 'how cool this is' when talking about gameplay. When I hear the words 'Action RPG' I think of a game where the action takes precedence over the concept of the RPG. An example may be a game like Dragon's Dogma. I take satisfaction in triumphing through skill over 'numbers', and when it comes to 'knowing things' I only need to know what I use, and what I am using it against. I detest tabletops, as I would much prefer to wade into the action and not sit around setting 'how many points are in my lockpicking and hygiene skills'.

But- we're still RPGers at heart, even if we'll be butting heads until the end of time!

 

Personally, I agree with Sylvius to a degree. I like when the game makes the rules clear. This stat does this, that stat does that, this item has X stats which means it benefits you in Y ways. This ability does this, which in context of the game mechanics helps you in that way. 

 

It's why I dislike Dark Souls. The mechanics are just way too buried under the rest for my taste, there's not enough text explaining why I am wearing this and how that stat benefits me and where do I find new spells, you often need to open the wiki to know that which to me is bad design. Some people like that trial and error aspect and that's fine, I dislike it.

 

With that being said, the game doesn't need to tell you everything. But it should tell you enough that a player that pays a minimum of attention can understand all the baseline mechanics of the game without having to refer to an external source. I feel Dragon Age does this well enough, albeit I'd really like the detailled tooltips ala Origins back.

 

Pillars of Eternity is also a great example. It clearly gives you all the basic information required to understand the game's mechanics. There's a glossary where you can access the nitty-gritty if you want, but it's not required to play.

 

As for the OP, it's not like a lot of people play Bethesda games for their riveting story and characters. Whereas it's a big draw for Bioware games, whenever some people might like them or not. I just hope FO4 has less terrible writing than FO3.

[Dean_the_Young]

Has anyone made the joke about how if Bethesda released any story content through the media pre-release, they'd run through their core storyline before the end of the second trailer?

 

[/bad joke about short critical paths]

[JoltDealer]

To be fair, Fallout 4 has given glimpses of its setting, beginning, and the available companions.  Bioware usually does the same, but they typically suffer from a **** ton of leaks.  However, based off of leaked casting calls and scripts from several months ago, some knew about Fallout 4's setting, voiced protagonist, and enemy factions before the game was officially announced.

 

That being said, Bioware games emphasize story and characters.  Fallout 4 is all about exploration.  There's no need for Bethesda to explain much about a plot that will likely be overshadowed by numerous, equally-superior sidequests.

[RoboticWater]

Personally, I agree with Sylvius to a degree. I like when the game makes the rules clear. This stat does this, that stat does that, this item has X stats which means it benefits you in Y ways. This ability does this, which in context of the game mechanics helps you in that way. 

 

It's why I dislike Dark Souls. The mechanics are just way too buried under the rest for my taste, there's not enough text explaining why I am wearing this and how that stat benefits me and where do I find new spells, you often need to open the wiki to know that which to me is bad design. Some people like that trial and error aspect and that's fine, I dislike it.

 

With that being said, the game doesn't need to tell you everything. But it should tell you enough that a player that pays a minimum of attention can understand all the baseline mechanics of the game without having to refer to an external source. I feel Dragon Age does this well enough, albeit I'd really like the detailled tooltips ala Origins back.

 

Pillars of Eternity is also a great example. It clearly gives you all the basic information required to understand the game's mechanics. There's a glossary where you can access the nitty-gritty if you want, but it's not required to play.

 

As for the OP, it's not like a lot of people play Bethesda games for their riveting story and characters. Whereas it's a big draw for Bioware games, whenever some people might like them or not. I just hope FO4 has less terrible writing than FO3.

The reason Dark Souls works so well for me is that there doesn't need to be any number crunching or item comparing. 

 

Within the first level, the game tells you the controls and hints towards vital mechanics like backstabbing and falling attacks. By the time you leave the Asylum, you know more than enough to be dangerous. The rest of the game is mostly figuring out movesets of weapons and attack animations of enemies. I never looked through wikis for ideal class builds, I just went forward and learned. The more obscure stuff is handled by player hints on the ground (and that's mostly secret passage ways).

 

My point is that active games like Mass Effect and Dark Souls don't need a hefty manual to keep players informed. Once you know how to shoot, move, and sling powers, the rest can be figured out on the spot.

 

Mass Effect isn't the kind of game that needs to advertise its ruleset. It's a shooter, and no matter how you spec your character, the game's going to play out mostly the same. Seeing "+20% Damage" doesn't mean much to anyone until they sit down and actually feel the difference in combat. Mass Effect has not and will likely never require any character min/maxing or build planning. Obviously, stuff needs tooltips; you need to know what you're speccing into, but the numbers could honestly just be a formality. The options could easily be "More damage or more health," and the player would ultimately just feel the upgrade when playing.

 

The developers could spend their time compiling "THE OFFICIAL RULESET" for Mass Effect and put it out, but it wouldn't do anyone any good until they actually get their hands on the game.

[KaiserShep]

Has anyone made the joke about how if Bethesda released any story content through the media pre-release, they'd run through their core storyline before the end of the second trailer?

 

[/bad joke about short critical paths]

 

The scene with the guy and his dog in the trailer is actually the end of the game. 

[Hiemoth]

Personally, I agree with Sylvius to a degree. I like when the game makes the rules clear. This stat does this, that stat does that, this item has X stats which means it benefits you in Y ways. This ability does this, which in context of the game mechanics helps you in that way. 

 

It's why I dislike Dark Souls. The mechanics are just way too buried under the rest for my taste, there's not enough text explaining why I am wearing this and how that stat benefits me and where do I find new spells, you often need to open the wiki to know that which to me is bad design. Some people like that trial and error aspect and that's fine, I dislike it.

 

With that being said, the game doesn't need to tell you everything. But it should tell you enough that a player that pays a minimum of attention can understand all the baseline mechanics of the game without having to refer to an external source. I feel Dragon Age does this well enough, albeit I'd really like the detailled tooltips ala Origins back.

 

Pillars of Eternity is also a great example. It clearly gives you all the basic information required to understand the game's mechanics. There's a glossary where you can access the nitty-gritty if you want, but it's not required to play.

 

As for the OP, it's not like a lot of people play Bethesda games for their riveting story and characters. Whereas it's a big draw for Bioware games, whenever some people might like them or not. I just hope FO4 has less terrible writing than FO3.

 

Actually, for me the weirdest example of this is DA2. Despite what people think, it actually had the most complex rule system of all three DA games so far, it was just utterly horrible in communicating certain aspects of that said rule system. Thus, I only started understanding a lot of those rules in my second and third playthrough, which also lead to me to really start appreciating certain aspects of how much room it gave while being utterly baffled by some of the choices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not really about misinterpretation (though I'll note IRL we often can clarify these apparent misinterpretations).

If we notice them in time, and care to do so.

 

I often don't notice them until it's too late to fix them without confusing people.  So I mostly let them pass without comment, just like in-game.

 

 

What I'm talking about is that the game doesn't actually acknowledge your character. The game has room for a quest-executing killbot, but there's no reaction to the killbot as a person.

How would that be different? (this is really the only important part of this post)

 

 

Icewind Dale is written for a player-created party. No individual character "exists" as an entity in the plot, because the whole story reacts to the party. You can invent headcanons for your various player-created PCs, but they game world isn't designed to recognize them as individuals.

I actually like that.  I want my party to present a unified face to the world.  I complained about that not happening in DAO.

 

NWN worked better, in that respect, as the henchmen never openly complain about what the PC does.

 

 

You get to be expressive, rather than just making a series of inquisitive and declarative statements.

I question whether those are meaningfully different.

 

 

In TES games, you're basically divorced from the whole plot. You're just a player sized peg, and the intricacies of the peg are irrelevant. Fallout actually tries to tie you to the world a lot more. You're a vault dweller, you have a father, etc. The actual gameworld itself, though, doesn't really react to you beyond a simple moral scale.

If the moral scale counts as reaction, I don't want the world to react to me.

 

In fact, you've just reminded me of something.  When I'm moving through a crowd (IRL), I wonder whether it matters that I'm there.  Obviously it matters that someone is there, because that presence affects the traffic flow, but does it matter that it's me?  And when I visit a store or a restaurant, would I prefer to be acknowledged individually, or be treated as some anonymous customer?  I vote anonymous customer every time.

 

I find being acknowledged as a person quite discomfiting, so I don't think I want that for my character either.

 

 

To me, RP is primarily about the interpersonal and the expressive - expressing beliefs, expressing emotions, building relationships with people.

I don't do that IRL.  I see little value in it in-game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You probably like tabletops, where you can sit down and create a character at the very beginning.

I think the point of a CRPG should be to recreate the experience of playing a tabletop RPG without the need for other players.

 

The problem with tabletop games is that they're multiplayer.  That, and the mechanics need to be simple enough for humans to calculate easily (they don't, really - they could have an accompanying smartphone app that did all the math).

 

 

You are the tactician; the strategist. You study, plan, and calculate well in advance to the scenario taking place.  You take satisfaction in triumphing through knowledge, statistical superiority, and knowing how every little thing works.

This is also how I approach life.

[Broganisity]

I think the point of a CRPG should be to recreate the experience of playing a tabletop RPG without the need for other players.

And to each their own, but also I think dedicating to that mentality entirely is not the way to go, nor is converting other games to be such. Imagining Mass Effect as such an experience? Huuuuuuuuuuuuh- *shuddering here*. It would be like if Divinity were a third person action hack n' slash. . .I can see that not working for people who like the gameplay it currently has.

I hate games with various little stats like 'Willpower'. . .what does that even mean, anyways? I prefer things to be decided by my ability to control the scenario, not by a number pushed onto me. My ability to not panic is my own, as is my aim. They should not be decided by 'Willpower' and 'Dexterity'. This is all in regards to the 'Action RPG', as I do enjoy myself some X-COM after all.

 

This is also how I approach life.

I, however, approach life like I mentioned with my RPGs. I prefer to move ever forward, as spending too much time looking back and too much time looking down means you aren't going anywhere. I don't do so recklessly, only that I prefer action to numbers in excess. Just as I too am sure you don't do everything methodically, systematically, and logically. We are, after all, beings that are logically illogical.

[Pasquale1234]

I hate games with various little stats like 'Willpower'. . .what does that even mean, anyways? I prefer things to be decided by my ability to control the scenario, not by a number pushed onto me. My ability to not panic is my own, as is my aim. They should not be decided by 'Willpower' and 'Dexterity'. This is all in regards to the 'Action RPG', as I do enjoy myself some X-COM after all.

Those "little stats" help to define the character you are role-playing. Your ability to control the scenario, to not panic, your aim - those are your personal traits, not the character's.

Action RPGs do tend to require a certain amount of self-insertion wherever player skills get involved. Some role-players prefer to minimize that, if not avoid it altogether.

[AlanC9]

Yes. And less fetch quest.

Less is impossible. Skyrim has infinite fetch quests, since the radiants regenerate. The best they can do is a tie at infinity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And to each their own, but also I think dedicating to that mentality entirely is not the way to go, nor is converting other games to be such. Imagining Mass Effect as such an experience? Huuuuuuuuuuuuh- *shuddering here*. It would be like if Divinity were a third person action hack n' slash. . .I can see that not working for people who like the gameplay it currently has.

I hate games with various little stats like 'Willpower'. . .what does that even mean, anyways? I prefer things to be decided by my ability to control the scenario, not by a number pushed onto me. My ability to not panic is my own, as is my aim.

My ability not to panic is my own.  But I don't live in he game world, so my abilities cannot matter without breaking the game's setting.

 

Stats like Willpower bother me immensely if I don't know exactly what they do.  DAI was awful for this; I had to wait for other players to run empirical tests and publish their results to find out what the value of one point of Cunning was.

They should not be decided by 'Willpower' and 'Dexterity'. This is all in regards to the 'Action RPG', as I do enjoy myself some X-COM after all.

I roleplay in all games.  Racing games.  Sports games.  Strategy games.  I don't play to win.  I play to maintain the coherence of my character, win or lose.

 

Games like Football Manager are great for this.

[AlanC9]

I hate games with various little stats like 'Willpower'. . .what does that even mean, anyways? I prefer things to be decided by my ability to control the scenario, not by a number pushed onto me. My ability to not panic is my own, as is my aim. They should not be decided by 'Willpower' and 'Dexterity'.

Why couldn't your character be different from you in these aspects? He's already different in other aspects.

[Broganisity]

Why couldn't your character be different from you in these aspects? He's already different in other aspects.

It's not so much about the character, but the ability to play the game itself. I separate Roleplay and Gameplay as two things, and I don't want to be punished because the gameplay says 'oh, you have a low willpower stat? Well, then this ability takes affect and you panic'. I want control of the character to be placed firmly in the hands of the player, and not in numbers that determine everything. If I swing my sword, I want it to hit or miss based on my ability to actually swing and hit the opponent, gauging physical matters like distance, terrain and elevation difference, not on an accuracy percentage or critical hit chance et cetera. This is all still under the concept of the 'Action RPG' which I believe must have gameplay that rewards the player for their ability to actively execute abilities versus the traditional concept of the RPG/Action RPG, which have hit rate and evasiveness as numbers you can add little points into to make yourself better.

In regards to Roleplaying, I won't deny that games with 'hit chance' and 'fear receptiveness' tied to numbers allows you to create and pretend to be a wider amount of characters, and that pretending to panic or deliberately missing in a more action-oriented game is just silly. But I don't have to tie Roleplaying to Gameplay in such games, nor do I really wish to. I can Roleplay my character through personality, choices, and 'style' (Close-Combat versus Ranged, etc), as you can do in Mass Effect.

Passive Control (Stats and Numbers) versus Direct Control (Skill and Activeness), is what it all comes down to in the end for Action RPGs, as far as I'm concerned.

----------