609 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ok, when you say "ventured to the nearest large town" I assume that would of had to have been when the people give some sort of directions for you to get there, i.e, it's not the world map.

Why would you assume that? I used the map all the time. It's a decent proxy for getting directions from people.

As for Winterhold, there is simply no way you would have found Winterhold without taking an insane amount of time and energy to just run there.

I could have hired a cart. I didn't do that - I ran there - but there are more ways to travel.

I took the northern route, avoiding Windhelm.

But even more to the point, there is nothing dangerous on the roads really, or even off the roads, just the same old bandits and bears.

But off the roads I'm more likely to have the advantage of elevation, and I just prefer experiencing the content in my own order.

Also, the roads in Skyrim are an inefficient way to travel. They're too twisty.

It's Minecraft almost, really.

And Minecraft isn't non-linear either, it's just a big giant room that you play blocks with inside, it's the play area at an Ikea, it's not the store, it's literally the "sandbox."

You think a sandbox is linear?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well I can tell you that's fine what you think, but it turns out challenge is important... more interesting and immersive games are more interesting for players.

Of course, sometimes people will buy Skyrim en masse or whatever and that's fine and all, but if we're saying which is substantively more engaging the hardcore experience is going to win out (provided it's not artificial, etc)

I prefer hardcore roleplaying. That's my engaging pursuit.

Anything that forces me to break character interferes with that, and thus reduces immersiveness.

As a roleplayer, you should be seeing the game world solely from your character's perspective. You don't even need to be aware that you exist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not sure why this is proving so ... like most people don't seriously consider Skyrim to be the pinnacle of hardcore RPG gaming... there are dozens of RPGs all over that I've played which were more intense and engaging... even though that's not necessarily the most common thing they certainly exist.

Skyrim isn't the pinnacle of much, except maybe modern moddability (the best part of the game),

The combat in Skyrim is awful. The world is shallow. But at least it's there for us to enjoy, rather than kept behind walls we can't cross because the carefully tailored gameplay only exists in this one location and we're only allowed to experience it as the designers intended.

That's a design far worse than Skyrim's shallow open world.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You know what, I sort of did the exact the same thing, got to chapter 5 and then the city itself the game makes a huge tonal shift and isn't nearly as interesting.

Finally, one time I just powered through it all, think I've only beaten it once though to this day. The last chapter of BG1 is easily the weakest part of the whole game, it's like they just abandoned the entire style which had been prevalent up until that point in favor of a more by the numbers experience.

I still expect to finish it one day, but I often take quite a while to get all the way through an RPG. I only finished the NWN OC for the first time just before DAO's release (so that was the standard by which I judged DAO initially, and DAO didn't look great from that perspective).

[UniformGreyColor]

I prefer hardcore roleplaying. That's my engaging pursuit.

Anything that forces me to break character interferes with that, and thus reduces immersiveness.

As a roleplayer, you should be seeing the game world solely from your character's perspective. You don't even need to be aware that you exist.

 

This is like Sylvius the Mad in a nutshell.

 

If I ever want info on what it means to role play, Sylvius is going too be the first person I talk to.

[Seraphim24]

Skyrim isn't the pinnacle of much, except maybe modern moddability (the best part of the game),

The combat in Skyrim is awful. The world is shallow. But at least it's there for us to enjoy, rather than kept behind walls we can't cross because the carefully tailored gameplay only exists in this one location and we're only allowed to experience it as the designers intended.

That's a design far worse than Skyrim's shallow open world.

 

Fair.

[Seraphim24]

I still expect to finish it one day, but I often take quite a while to get all the way through an RPG. I only finished the NWN OC for the first time just before DAO's release (so that was the standard by which I judged DAO initially, and DAO didn't look great from that perspective).

 

Still, never thought I'd come across someone who had played such an old game almost the same way I did.

[Seraphim24]

Really? That's a bet you WILL lose! (What's cheating anyway? Using CLUA console? Something else?)

 

Anyway, these days when I play BG1, I use a bunch of mods like SCS that make the game considerably harder!

 

Yeah the CLUA console.

[Seraphim24]

You think a sandbox is linear?

 

I think it's a box, full of sand.

 

Would rather be in the playground as a whole.

[bEVEsthda]

Actually , I played Skyrim by exploring the entire map on foot going from place to place on the hardest level. The first action I took when available was to traverse the entire map. Did the same action for Morrowind and Oblivion. And yes I explored areas above my level figuring out the best way to defeat the enemy in that area. It is very doable. It is the way I play most if not all crpgs. If you defeat the enemy in the tougher area with a low level character you get more experience and level up faster.

 

Just in passing.

That's not how I do them. My character just 'goes live there'. When it does, it typically discovers that there are a number of things it need to, or want to, relate to and deal with in some ways. The game and the character's story then follow from that. And that's it.

The character is usually cautious and does not venture into danger recklessly.

As for the "exploration", I played Morrowind by paper map and compass. I enjoyed that tremendously. I also enjoyed becoming lost. Some of the best adventures followed from that. I walked by foot everywhere. I did not use the GSP feature until I had basically already been everywhere (and finished the main plot). It did take a lot of time though. Only KSP can compete in terms of hours.

 

The day I launched in Morrowind and discovered I could play that game in this way, is one of the most magical and wonderful ever, in my gaming life.

 

FO3 offers the same.  Skyrim comes close enough. And while my character is harder bound by story in BG, DA:O and DA:I, that's still the basis for my perspective towards the game. Exploring? I don't think I really do any exploring for its own sake. I'm forced to, by something. I don't try anything "let's see what happens if I jump off this cliff" or go looking somewhere, if my character is not motivated to do so.

[Mr Fixit]

As a roleplayer, you should be seeing the game world solely from your character's perspective. You don't even need to be aware that you exist.

 

I know you'll disagree, but I take issue with this statement.

 

For one, it's impossible not to be aware of one's existence (unless in a trance, sleep, or coma I guess). I can't pretend I, the player, am not here. That said, from pure roleplaying perspective, it's certainly advisable to minimize the player's input and maximize the character's (what would my character do? Or, at least, what would Buffy do?  )

 

Secondly, and most importantly to me, I don't roleplay in the vacuum and therefore I wouldn't want to disentangle myself from my character even if I could. I roleplay in part due to a profound satisfaction I, the player, get from experiencing other lives and other potentialities and how that influences, changes, and informs me, Mr Fixit. There is always a sliver of me in all my characters (and I dare say that's how it is with pretty much everyone's characters). If all the ties between player and character get severed at the point of PC creation, what meaningful and individualized experience tailored to me specifically would I draw from this exercise? 

 

Now, if I may jump over to your perspective for a moment, I know you are a proponent of the theory that we can never know and understand other people and that true 2-way communication doesn't really exist. If that's the case, how do you roleplay your character, when it should be impossible for you to ever truly understand him?

[UniformGreyColor]

Now, if I may jump over to your perspective for a moment, I know you are a proponent of the theory that we can never know and understand other people and that true 2-way communication doesn't really exist. If that's the case, how do you roleplay your character, when it should be impossible for you to ever truly understand him?

 

Because its a creation that the individual makes themselves. Its like an actor in character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeah the CLUA console.

I still have GateKeeper, the savegame editor.

[vbibbi]

I had a harder time maintaining my interest, certainly.

 

But, to tell the truth, I've never actually finished BG1.  I've never even finished Chapter 5.  I've played that far literally dozens of times, but once the game gets linear I kind of lose interest.

 

I don't expect the end would be difficult, though.  I understand that Sarevok's magic resistance was toned down with TotSC installed, and I only ever played the game with TotSC installed.  I also never killed Drizzt, but I always killed Shandalar.

 

I did finish Durlag's Tower.  That was a lot of fun.  But then returning to Ulgoth's Beard always got me killed because of my 4 wizard party.  We couldn't survive those assassin attacks.

I know that you have a very specific play style and approach to role playing. That's fine, no issues with having a different (and interesting) view point.

 

I do think people with very radical styles do need to recognize, though, that their views are not going to be widely held, and it's unrealistic to expect a game to match their specific requirements well. Especially in the era of gaming appealing to the broadest audience as possible.

 

I will note that it's a little ironic that you are all for open world games and non linear storytelling and want Bioware to keep doing this, but one of the few open world games they've had, BG1, you haven't even finished. Again, that's fine, nothing wrong with how you play your games. But honestly I don't think you're the ideal/target consumer for Bioware, as they want people to finish their games and play for the story. Story is what they're known for, and if they continue to release DLC content like Awakening, Trespasser, or the canceled Exalted Marches (I know that was canceled so not the best example, but it shows that their initial intent was to have an ending DLC to the base game), then they want as many people to complete the game as possible, so that those players will also buy the post-campaign DLC.

 

It's in their best interests to try to attract gamers who want to play through to the end of the main story and want more (in the form of paid ending DLCs). I'm on the fence about how great it is to have "epilogue" DLCs be required for the "full" game's experience, but regardless of my feelings, from a business perspective it's profitable.

 

Or (And I know people are prolly going to hate me for saying this) BW could do their quest system different than anything we have ever seen before! I wouldn't mind a totally new rendition of how to do quest honestly. It would be nice to see something completely new from BW.

I wouldn't mind this. It could be helpful to have a break with the well worn style of quests in RPGs. The trouble is, I think deviating so much from the standard would be very time consuming and risky, and after DA2 and ME3's ending, Bioware has shown that they are going to be risk averse for some time.

[Realmzmaster]

How did you even know what "place to place" was though? Why would you bother going N or S or E or W out of the very first town in Skyrim? There is no indication what is in any direction so it might as well have been random.

 

Also if the "first action you took" was to traverse the entire map" that would of, without speed buffs, etc, covering every inch, probably taken like 60 hours.

 

That is the point of exploration. Finding what is out there. You pick a direction and go until you find the end of the map in that direction. I use that end and send the protagonist in an east or west direction. Eventually the entire map is revealed. My first go round in Skyrim clocked in at 700 hours, but then I completed about every quest.

[Realmzmaster]

 

I'm willing to bet like I'm probably the only one here on this entire forum who actually beat Baldur's Gate 1 without cheating.

 

Wrong! Beat BG1 many times without cheating. I have been playing crpgs for a long time and p n p systems before that.

[vbibbi]

That is the point of exploration. Finding what is out there. You pick a direction and go until you find the end of the map in that direction. I use that end and send the protagonist in an east or west direction. Eventually the entire map is revealed. My first go round in Skyrim clocked in at 700 hours, but then I completed about every quest.

But how does DAI compare to this? The exploration is interrupted by exclamation points, question marks, and diamonds across the map. It's not pure exploration as much as guided between points.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think it's a box, full of sand.

Would rather be in the playground as a whole.

You've hit upon an important distinction, though, and one I mention a lot.

I often say that RPGs aren't games because they don't have winning conditions. Similarly, the sandbox and the playground also aren't games. They're not things you play; they are things with which you play. They're toys. And that's also how I would categorize roleplaying games. They are the tools of play. You can play in them, or with them, but you do not play them.

Just as we can play games in a playground or a sandbox, we can play games in an RPG. But that's not all the RPG can do.

[AlanC9]

Also, the roads in Skyrim are an inefficient way to travel. They're too twisty.

Though at least you know you won't hit any impassable terrain that way. There's usually a usable path going over a bit of rough terrain, but finding it can be a bit of a time-sink. In the course of that time-sink you'll stumble onto stuff, so it's not really a problem.

One possible advantage of using the roads is the trails leading from them; they have to go someplace, after all. One of the things I didn't like about Skyrim compared to, say, Morrowind, is that it's a bit frantic. You can't walk from one town to the next without popping up a whole bunch of ruins, caves, and whatnot. DAI struck me as being a little less overstuffed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I know you'll disagree, but I take issue with this statement.

For one, it's impossible not to be aware of one's existence (unless in a trance, sleep, or coma I guess). I can't pretend I, the player, am not here. That said, from pure roleplaying perspective, it's certainly advisable to minimize the player's input and maximize the character's (what would my character do? Or, at least, what would Buffy do? )

Right, and the way to minimize that undue influence is to remove your own consciousness from the equation. My approach was once described as the wilful induction of psychosis, and that's fairly accurate.

If, while I'm playing, the only perspective I'm aware of is that of my character, then I cannot help but make in-character decisions.

Secondly, and most importantly to me, I don't roleplay in the vacuum and therefore I wouldn't want to disentangle myself from my character even if I could. I roleplay in part due to a profound satisfaction I, the player, get from experiencing other lives and other potentialities and how that influences, changes, and informs me, Mr Fixit. There is always a sliver of me in all my characters (and I dare say that's how it is with pretty much everyone's characters). If all the ties between player and character get severed at the point of PC creation, what meaningful and individualized experience tailored to me specifically would I draw from this exercise?

I get what you describe in hindsight, as I look back at what my character has done.

And while the ties get severed when character creation is done, at that point you've already crafted the character's personality. That character is your creation. Everything that happens later is informed by the choices you made.

Now, if I may jump over to your perspective for a moment, I know you are a proponent of the theory that we can never know and understand other people and that true 2-way communication doesn't really exist. If that's the case, how do you roleplay your character, when it should be impossible for you to ever truly understand him?

My character differs from other people in one very important way: I can read his mind. I'm responsible for every thought in his brain.

I understand him because I created him and because, when I'm playing, I am him.

[AlanC9]

But how does DAI compare to this? The exploration is interrupted by exclamation points, question marks, and diamonds across the map. It's not pure exploration as much as guided between points.

Well, not a diamond. The diamond is there to mark something you already knew about, right? (This is a problem for some wuests which shouldn't have defined targets, but do.) That's why they show in parts of the map you haven't been to. The others only show when you get close, typically visual range, so you do have to explore to get them.

I can see why Bio included the markers. I'm not a big fan of talking to every single NPC in a town to see which ones are in a plot, and inanimate objects are often non-interactive in a Bio game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Though at least you know you won't hit any impassable terrain that way. There's usually a usable path going over a bit of rough terrain, but finding it can be a bit of a time-sink. In the course of that time-sink you'll stumble onto stuff, so it's not really a problem.

I think it was my fourth Skyrim character who finally went to Ivarstead, and I went there only because I never had before. Previously, I'd always reached High Hrothgar by parkouring up the mountain from Helgen.

One possible advantage of using the roads is the trails leading from them; they have to go someplace, after all. One of the things I didn't like about Skyrim compared to, say, Morrowind, is that it's a bit frantic. You can't walk from one town to the next without popping up a whole bunch of ruins, caves, and whatnot. DAI struck me as being a little less overstuffed.

Staying on the road ensures that you'll find all those. Offroad it's far less densely populated.

I started staying on the road after I got the Nightmare mount. Then I found all sorts of caves and ruins I hadn't seen before.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, not a diamond. The diamond is there to mark something you already knew about, right? (This is a problem for some wuests which shouldn't have defined targets, but do.) That's why they show in parts of the map you haven't been to. The others only show when you get close, typically visual range, so you do have to explore to get them.

I can see why Bio included the markers. I'm not a big fan of talking to every single NPC in a town to see which ones are in a plot, and inanimate objects are often non-interactive in a Bio game.

We used to be able to hold down Tab to highlight the interactive objects. That worked just as well.

I would rather not have had the quest markers in DAI. And Skyrim, for that matter.

[Realmzmaster]

But how does DAI compare to this? The exploration is interrupted by exclamation points, question marks, and diamonds across the map. It's not pure exploration as much as guided between points.

 

I turn the HUD off. Places on the map only appear when the party is close to them so that requires exploration.

[BansheeOwnage]

Huh, I guess I was the only one who liked Skyrim combat. The bow mechanics were especially fun.