I'm more concerned about meaningless filler content a la DAI.
If MEA ends up being a game where you explore vast planet zones while gathering materials and relics between batches of hostile trash mobs, will it be DAI-inspired "meaningless filler" or ME1-inspired "meaningless filler"?
Perhaps we'll even get to scan nearly two-dozen alien lifeforms on a space station again.
Does it really much matter what inspires the boring gameplay?
I feel like I shouldn't have started replaying DA:I so soon after finishing The Witcher 3. I played Trespasser, and enjoyed it so much that I got all excited and picked up the second DA:I playthrough I'd started back before Wild Hunt came out. I've been trying to clear all the areas and side quests before I do Abyss and Wicked Eyes. Unfortunately, all the side quests immediately draw comparisons to TW3, and they just can't hold up. I read a note in the middle of a vast, beautiful, near-lifeless wilderness, and then I go to the place and do the thing. There are no characters invested in the outcome of these quests, no stories behind them. It's like my Inquisitor is running around some rat maze designed by a deranged scientist, asking me to find my way to the end and pull the lever to get a kibble of food. They're not part of an organic world. TW3 presents a game that feels like a world; DA:I presents a world that feels like a game.
And the more I play, the less I like that game. I can feel the excitement wane while my disgruntlement waxes. I have half of Emerald Graves and the Hissing Wastes left, and I had the horrible realization that if I just skipped those two areas, I would lose absolutely nothing of value. The only thing keeping me from skipping to the main story is my compulsive completionism and the mild desire to have enough resources to play dress up with my party. Which is a damn shame, because I love the main story quests in Inquisition. I love talking with my companions and doing their quests. I finished playing today by talking with some companions, and could feel some of my excitement creep back in.
And this is why I'm becoming increasingly desperate for ME:A not to follow this path. The more I see in this replay, the more I worry ME:A will be similar. A whole generation of BioWare games plagued by some disease that seems to wipe out all life in their worlds. I've never had a BioWare game feel so barren before, and I really don't want that again. This is a developer that built themselves on rich worlds full of interesting characters and interactions. I hate to see them, if not necessarily abandon it, then bury under rubble, under 3 bloody desert regions, under a massive forest with no significant contribution to the game. I realize that writing allocation is different between party and single-character games, but ME:A NEEDS to take the TW3 approach to quests. I'm absolutely convinced of that now. It needs quests with stories, catharsis, consequences; it needs characters to be more than a pair of lamp posts talking at each other. CDProjekt accomplished the illusion of a dynamic world full of real people with less than half the line budget of DA:I. 80,000 lines of dialogue and over a million words and BioWare still couldn't manage that. So by all means, make an open world for us to explore, but please FILL IT WITH SOMETHING.
That he meant it to mean something doesn't guarantee that it does.Considering he coined the phrase...
I don't object to changing what we call it. But the label doesn't tell us anything about the item.When everybody is more or less agreeing with each other to the point where a particular label or term becomes common parlance, your refusal to acknowledge it is contrarian for the sake of being special.
Roleplaying games aren't "decided". They don't have winning conditions. There's no fixed or established outcome.RPGs and video games are both games.
Unless you're going to tell me that one does not "play" an RPG, and that RPGs aren't "played" according to a set of rules and are decided by skill (i.e. knowledge of the mechanics involved), strength (i.e. the gear and allocated stats of the player character), or luck (i.e. d20 or any similar dice rolls or RNG factors). Because role-playing games fit every criteria for being a "game".
I bring clarity to other people's positions by questioning their basis.Which explains why you and only you are apparently capable of making sense of the s*** you say.
CRPGs don't require other players. That is their strength.Personally, I think that's a terrible criteria to use. CRPG's are great in a lot of ways, but they utterly fail to capture the sheer scope of what pen and paper lets a player accomplish. To keep Robotic's fun Plato analogy going, if pen and paper is the "true form", the cRPG is the mere shadow on the wall.
CRPGs don't require other players. That is their strength.
I want CRPGs that reproduce a tabletop RPG experience without the need for other players.
That's all I've ever wanted from a CRPG, and that is the ideal to which I think they should aspire.
Like I said, it sounds like you're asking for the shadows on the wall. That may be what they aspire to. But they don't even come close to replicating the experience. Not based on your statements regarding how you RP in games, at any rate.
Baldur's Gate did an excellent job. Craft a character based on rules that are clearly documented, and then set him loose in the world. There are things happening in the world that attempt to involve your character. How does your character respond? Where does he go? Whom does he trust? What are his objectives?Like I said, it sounds like you're asking for the shadows on the wall. That may be what they aspire to. But they don't even come close to replicating the experience. Not based on your statements regarding how you RP in games, at any rate.
Does it really much matter what inspires the boring gameplay?
I feel like I shouldn't have started replaying DA:I so soon after finishing The Witcher 3. I played Trespasser, and enjoyed it so much that I got all excited and picked up the second DA:I playthrough I'd started back before Wild Hunt came out. I've been trying to clear all the areas and side quests before I do Abyss and Wicked Eyes. Unfortunately, all the side quests immediately draw comparisons to TW3, and they just can't hold up. I read a note in the middle of a vast, beautiful, near-lifeless wilderness, and then I go to the place and do the thing. There are no characters invested in the outcome of these quests, no stories behind them. It's like my Inquisitor is running around some rat maze designed by a deranged scientist, asking me to find my way to the end and pull the lever to get a kibble of food. They're not part of an organic world. TW3 presents a game that feels like a world; DA:I presents a world that feels like a game.
And the more I play, the less I like that game. I can feel the excitement wane while my disgruntlement waxes. I have half of Emerald Graves and the Hissing Wastes left, and I had the horrible realization that if I just skipped those two areas, I would lose absolutely nothing of value. The only thing keeping me from skipping to the main story is my compulsive completionism and the mild desire to have enough resources to play dress up with my party. Which is a damn shame, because I love the main story quests in Inquisition. I love talking with my companions and doing their quests. I finished playing today by talking with some companions, and could feel some of my excitement creep back in.
And this is why I'm becoming increasingly desperate for ME:A not to follow this path. The more I see in this replay, the more I worry ME:A will be similar. A whole generation of BioWare games plagued by some disease that seems to wipe out all life in their worlds. I've never had a BioWare game feel so barren before, and I really don't want that again. This is a developer that built themselves on rich worlds full of interesting characters and interactions. I hate to see them, if not necessarily abandon it, then bury under rubble, under 3 bloody desert regions, under a massive forest with no significant contribution to the game. I realize that writing allocation is different between party and single-character games, but ME:A NEEDS to take the TW3 approach to quests. I'm absolutely convinced of that now. It needs quests with stories, catharsis, consequences; it needs characters to be more than a pair of lamp posts talking at each other. CDProjekt accomplished the illusion of a dynamic world full of real people with less than half the line budget of DA:I. 80,000 lines of dialogue and over a million words and BioWare still couldn't manage that. So by all means, make an open world for us to explore, but please FILL IT WITH SOMETHING.
Perfectly said.
Does it really much matter what inspires the boring gameplay?
TW3 presents a game that feels like a world; DA:I presents a world that feels like a game.
And the more I play, the less I like that game. I can feel the excitement wane while my disgruntlement waxes. I have half of Emerald Graves and the Hissing Wastes left, and I had the horrible realization that if I just skipped those two areas, I would lose absolutely nothing of value. The only thing keeping me from skipping to the main story is my compulsive completionism and the mild desire to have enough resources to play dress up with my party.
It isn't corporate greed because vanilla DA: I is what they could make with the time and resources they had. Trespasser is what they could make as DLC after release. Trespasser wasn't developed during vanilla DA: I.
Your post simply sounds like a consumer wanting free stuff regardless of the realities of development.
Whilst I loved Trespasser I still think the DLC thing is quite a bit of a rip off...buying all of the 3 DLCs for DA would cost me $25 USD more than the base game (I haven't played through two of them yet). That in itself is makes no sense IMO.
No sense for you, that is. (Or me, FWIW,which is why I didn't buy them) It makes plenty of sense for EA, as long as enough of us are willing to pay that.Whilst I loved Trespasser I still think the DLC thing is quite a bit of a rip off...buying all of the 3 DLCs for DA would cost me $25 USD more than the base game (I haven't played through two of them yet). That in itself is makes no sense IMO.
That he meant it to mean something doesn't guarantee that it does.
It does when it's a combination of words that he invented. That's the entire purpose of having language to begin with.
Meaning is not imparted by intent.
Except for when it is, like in this case.
I don't object to changing what we call it. But the label doesn't tell us anything about the item.
Roleplaying games aren't "decided". They don't have winning conditions. There's no fixed or established outcome.
Tell that to every RPG where there is in fact a winning condition or established outcome.
You might "beat" Gears of War, but you never "beat" a roleplaying system. And that's what a roleplaying game is - the system of rules.
No, it's a game. It's in the name. Be as obtuse and contrarian as you want, that doesn't change the meaning of the words.
I bring clarity to other people's positions by questioning their basis.
This is the same line of thinking used by conspiracy theorist nutjobs who say stupid garbage, then turn around and say "What? I'm just asking questions" when they're called out for saying idiotic nonsense.
This is the same line of thinking used by conspiracy theorist nutjobs who say stupid garbage, then turn around and say "What? I'm just asking questions" when they're called out for saying idiotic nonsense.
Nope sorry I for one hope it is. I fell like most game nowadays are too short.
Baldur's Gate did an excellent job. Craft a character based on rules that are clearly documented, and then set him loose in the world. There are things happening in the world that attempt to involve your character. How does your character respond? Where does he go? Whom does he trust? What are his objectives?
The NWN OC was also excellent in this regard.
BioWare got it just about right. More than once.
Ignoring that I consider Baldur's Gate and NwN as Bioware's worst games, they were also terrible at replicating pen and paper.
The morality system was one dimensional (and in general, misguided), dialogue options were extremely limited, and character interactions took a backseat to a combat system. In large part, they were a perfect demonstration of why creating an empty sandbox isn't enough to match the sheer scope of tabletop lets you do, given a capable DM.
Thise two and DAI are the top 3, in my opinion.Ignoring that I consider Baldur's Gate and NwN as Bioware's worst games
All morality systems are.The morality system was one dimensional (and in general, misguided)
We got to choose what we wanted to say, and why, and how. They were miles ahead of any voiced protagonist game, in that regard.dialogue options were extremely limited
Character interactions should take up a fairly small part of the game. We spend far more time traveling and actually doing things than we do talking to people.and character interactions took a backseat to a combat system.
A capable GM gives you a sandbox. But in a single-player RPG, you can partly fill the role of gamemaster yourself.In large part, they were a perfect demonstration of why creating an empty sandbox isn't enough to match the sheer scope of tabletop lets you do, given a capable DM.
Character interactions should take up a fairly small part of the game. We spend far more time traveling and actually doing things than we do talking to people.
Madness! Character interaction is basically the core component that keeps me with these games. Without it, I would've abandoned them a long time ago.
Madness! Character interaction is basically the core component that keeps me with these games. Without it, I would've abandoned them a long time ago.
~A capable GM gives you a sandbox. But in a single-player RPG, you can partly fill the role of gamemaster yourself.
Hence why I'd argue you're not role-playing. The player is not ever supposed to fill the role of the game-master. That division of labor is exactly what allows the distinction between role-playing and writing to even exist. A role-player controls one single aspect of that world: his character, who is a lens through which he filters the world. The DM's job is to provide the world. And to be clear, when I say "the world", I don't simply mean a landscape.
A tabletop RPG typically features multiple players and one gamemaster. A single-player RPG needs all of thise roles filled. Some will be filled by the writers, and others by the player, but I see no need for a strict dividing line there.
I don't dispute that a cRPG has most of the same basic roles as a tabletop. Bioware as the developer is essentially filling in as the game-master, the player remains the player. What I am disputing is the idea that cRPG's can ever effectively fill the void of what tabletop does best: near limitless character options, near limitless reactivity, near limitless new content.
We got to choose what we wanted to say, and why, and how. They were miles ahead of any voiced protagonist game, in that regard.
Only assuming the requisite level of nuance was "I'm evil!" and "I'll help you!". Hence why it was laughable even compared to the limitations imposed by voice-acting. That was essentially my point regarding the morality system. Morality systems do tend to fail in general (Mass Effect included), but subsequent Bioware games tended to move in directions that allow the player to express at least a few more ideas than simply "I will kill you" and "I will save you".
As a pen and paper experience, if I was restricted to the dialogue options imposed by Baldur's Gate, I never would have made it past Candlekeep.
And they're all roleplaying opportunities.
I think the modern focus on character interaction is misguided.
Sure, they're "role-playing" opportunities in the weakest sense of the word. Of course, how much I get to express who that character is going to be pretty much nil in absence of some kind of external stimulus. Playing an evil character wandering the wilderness who never encounters any opportunities to be evil isn't the most interesting character concept. Ignoring also the plethora of campaigns that take place in urban environments which offer dozens of opportunities for character interaction.
This makes it sound like it's your approach to the game that's the problem, rather than the design.
Now I'm picturing the beginning of DA:O rewritten with a bare minimum of dialogue.
::shudders::
Wouldn't have been that bad, just aimed at a different demographic of rpg gamers.
If it wasn't story focused the whole thing would likely have featured a much deeper combat system and encounter design to compensate, an analogy could be drawn to what Icewind Dale did in comparison to Baldur's Gate.
As for cRPG's in comparison to pen and paper, the only rpg id consider a possible equal would be planescape torment, that has writing that still haven't been matched to this day.
Retour en haut
