Tale

That's pretty bad. I haven't played Runaway 2 so I'm not sure it's on the same level, but I got pretty miffed back when I played Soul Reaver 1 and 2 and was getting the same stuff. "History abhores a paradox", right. Only a different way of saying 'To Be Continued' which annoyed a lot of fans back in the day. Currently... In between games. Close to finishing The Bard's Tale (craptacular), playing Hordes of the Underdark (so so at this point, but already better than SoU), and the Icewind Dale series and Fable:TLC coming up. Defiance finished up the Soul Reaver series nicely.

There's a difference between saving the entire world from something and just saving your little corner of the world. Maybe not from a gameplay perspective, but from a story perspective, which is what the issue at hand is in regards to. All games start off as a quest. Simple quests like this in other games generally consist of giving the map location and making it so you can waltz right in slaughtering bandits left and right. Having to investigate the bandit menance, finding out who or where their leader is, having to travel several towns over, find allies against the immense criminal organization, and ultimately formulate a plan to bring it down. You assume "bandits" and think "well, they'll just give me a map marker and I can single handedly slaughter them all!" but no. We're talking organized crime here, this would be taking down the mafia. You don't get an easy time.

Focus. Personally, I know I'd be interested in a detailed murder mystery using an RPG system. Social skills for evidence gathering would be interesting.

Invasion by barbarian horde of a relatively small group of cities? (this idea ripped from a book) Sand's mentioned idea of defense of a trade route. Perhaps it has become incredibly overrun with bandits and the only way to stop them is to seek out their leader. But, where? A lengthy and detailed jaunt into a city's underworld, either as criminal or cop. etc. etc.

Are you trying to railroad us? I'm calling this a sham! SHAM!

No, it has a focused story line around the PC, just not one that revolves saving the world or the character being the chosen one. So then what we have, in essence, is the set up of an MMORPG, without the other people. I'll agree that you could call the players life in the game a "storyline" but it wouldn't be a flowing storyline. It would just be your character doing quests and oddjobs, and then like saying, "This is the story of Harvey, and ordinary man in an ordinary village. He did oddjobs and quests." And I think a game like that would rely very heavily on the setting, like MMORPG's do. Because he's obviously not talking about odd jobs and just some quests. When he talks about everyday evil, he doesn't mean the toilet overflowing, he means something more mundane than the world is in dire peril.

West side!

is the new yar and im so frgggn as sober.

Oh boy oh boy. I want to get in on this question. But, I really shouldn't. Nobody agrees with me.

As you should! RUN, MY PRETTY! RUN!

I don't know what to play anymore. Beat Warhammer Mark of Chaos's Chaos campaign. Just hit the world of ruin in Final Fantasy VI and am annoyed by repeated death. Final Fantasy XII hasn't kept my interest. I might startup Fallout or Legacy of Kain Defiance. I want to start Silent Hill 2, but I'm skeered.

Sam & Max won't take you long. 4 more days until episode 2!

Movie to game to movie conversions suck even worse. Think Streetfighter: The Movie: The Game, but reverse the transitions.

I have no qualm with the concept of the chosen one. I do have a qualm with its constant overuse in order to speed up a story progression towards defeating a great evil. In order to get a character to go from a humble beginning to be able to accomplish epic feats within a single game he is given the title of chosen one and abilities as a consequence. I think too many games are quick to make the main character the center of epic conflict that will change the world! Too much overly dramatic importance placed on events in the game. Like everyone's competing to try to be as epic as Star Wars or LOTR without spending the time and effort to develop the story.

Crap! This! Or the first Battlefront. The second Battlefront removed the scattergun from the Darktrooper. I kicked posterior with that Darktrooper. My friends would panic when I was nearby. "KILL HIM! KILL HIM! OH CRAP, HE'S COMING!" "HOW'D HE GET BEHIND US!"

A

Celebrating the New Years? What's your poison?

Hotlink OWNED

As long as he's not a Halfling.

I was such an *** in Phantasy Star Online.

I'm pretty sure that's a misquote. The Ring, being a thing of pure evil that it is, would have not chosen Frodo unless it was sure it could use him. "There are other forces at work in this world Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought. " from the movie. I'll agree that Frodo was a chosen. Kinda... after the fact though thanks to story revisions. Regardless of story revisions relating to the prophecy or previously believed notions that anyone could become a Jedi, Luke was the only one capable of getting through to his father. Isn't that like the structure of an MMORPG? And still, a game with no included storyline would need to have something else that apeals to the person to get them to want to play. The game would probably heavily rely on the setting then, and that might be tough to do, getting a setting that would attract enough people to buy a game with no storyline. He's not saying anything about having no included storyline. Just that the storyline doesn't have to do what many other games like doing (note: I'm not saying all) and that is forcing an epic story in a short timespan.

Is there any point where I tried making the claim that one was more enjoyable than the other? I merely am saying they are different stories. Yes, Aragorn was chosen. The sword he carried in Return of the King was for him alone. The undead army that fought for him would have listened to no other man. His heritage played a lot into what he could do, who listened to him, and other things. Luke Skywalker was definitely a chosen, too. He was part of the prophecy that balanced the force through his father's redemption. Something that only he (or maybe his sister) could have accomplished. These are significant differences. However, the main significance of the difference comes in how the character develops and how the audience can view that development. BUT absolutely none of this can apply to games like Oblivion or Morrowind. They're centered around giving the player a world to do anything they want in. This discussion applies to character development (beyond stats).

Fate played a large part, simply because he was a hobbit. Besides, what you just described is not what you were in Oblivion either. Though it was a bit of a mistake on my part, because I typically associate "Chosen One" with being "PC is big and bad and ultimately stops great cataclysm." Is a game about saving a kingdom really, deep down, significantly different and more enjoyable if you are just "some guy" that saves it, or someone "chosen" to save it. Yes, there is a significant difference between the stories of Parn (Record of Lodoss War), Frodo (Lord of the Rings), and Drizzt (Icewind Dale Trilogy) and the stories of Aragorn (Lord of the Rings), Luke Skywalker (Star Wars), Dune, Cloud (Final Fantasy VII), Terra (Final Fantasy VI), both KOTORs, Baldur's Gate series, Raziel (Soul Reaver), and Kain (Legacy of Kain). There are stories where the protagonist is, for the most part, a regular guy. Perhaps due to a chance encounter or by the finding of the courage within himself he pursues an adventure. It is usually a tale of the capability and courage of man. It tells of regular joe schmoes achieving great deeds. And there are stories where the protagonist is "the chosen one." There is no chance in what occurs to him. But, he still often has to find the courage within himself to pursue the adventure. These tales are singular in their application, what goes on is not relateable to the greater world or the average person. It is something that could have only happened to these heroes because of their special status. They can both be good and fantastic stories.

That used too happen, kinda. NPCs used to solve quests and close Oblivion gates on their own. It had to be fixed, because it was preventing the player from doing some things. I've heard that before and it's kind of awesome. Granted not all that helpful from a gameplay perspective, but still awesome.

So what exactly do you do then? Do you make the PC completely uninvolved in the actual conflict? Because either you're solving it, or you're doing what you can to help. Do people not like, for instance Aragorn, even though his contribution to solving the problem is essentially just trying to help buy Frodo the time he needs? You can be involved in a conflict, you can help stop the conflict, without being the shardbearer/son of a god/the returning king/reincarnation of a man made god. Frodo wasn't "the chosen one." Fate didn't decide his place, he did. Is this the thread where we talk about this? I didn't want to go into it without being prompted, but I agree on the detriment point. Especially as a stealth character.