Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Delterius

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    308

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Delterius

  1. Delterius
    Thats ridiculous. Now you are just engaged in pure sophistry. Gameplay and story segregation is a well-known fact: whenever it happens, be it by design or otherwise, it breaks the world's atmosphere. Sometimes its minor (I certainly survived the lack of urgency before, though it was often rather counter-productive), sometimes not. To integrate gameplay and story creates the perfect narrative in this medium.
  2. Delterius
    And thus, she dies. Or maybe she escapes. Or maybe she's sold into slavery. If you character didn't care enough about the elven maiden, there's no reason to care now that something happened.
  3. Delterius
    Which is commendable, but not a ideal situation. The player's imagination must complement gameplay, not pretend that there actually is gameplay. If there's no urgency, there's no urgency. Many have already voiced that what they want is the false sense of urgency so they can explore the entirety of the game, and given that actual, interactive, urgency does not necessarily preclude full exploration and completism, that means that particular person is, as you put it, a 'nutter, whose only desire is to wait forever'. Why does there have to be a 'consequence' of my preferred style of play but you get to have it how you like it? There should be a consequence to rushing through the game urgently too. In games without level scalling, there are potentially bad consequences for neglecting sidequests, especially if most of the game is made of optional content. There should be a consequence for every choice, if your preferred style of play value exploration over narrative, then so be it. Mind you, that consequence is neither necessarily good or bad, it merely is the world estabilishing a good atmosphere. Immersion and all that. Again, I do not wish for a overaching plot that urges you through the entire game.
  4. Delterius
    'Spit on Richard Garriot' should be 'go to space' instead.
  5. Delterius
    Half of a game's narrative comes from how the player is caused to interact with it. If the game mechanics do not sustain the story, then there's no narrative. Not really, casual gaming is partially defined by a lack of commitment. If you believe exploration takes precedence over the game's narrative, no problem that's your choice - to think that because of that there should be no consequences to your choices is very much casual. In fact, to deny a game mechanic because its a hassle is one very defining stereotype of the casual gamer. And I'm pretty sure your character is aware that the world exists beyond him. Please, do point to me where I use the word realism. I'm very well aware of what I'm asking, you on the other hand doesn't seem to: given the use of the word 'actiony'.
  6. Delterius
    That, coupled with what is called a 'degenerate rest system' were flaws of design, true. But let me point out that there was the occasional urgency in BG: Jaheira and Khalid might quit on you prior to Nashkel. Likewise with Xzar and Montaron. A lot of people don't know that, I believe, because many recent tweak mods remove that feature. And that's the difference between a nostalgic and a reasonable person. I love the IE games for what they were good at and I don't believe they were perfect. Many of them had pathetic C&C outside of combat.
  7. Delterius
    As far as romances go I lean towards the 'better safe without' camp, but one thing I'd avoid is multiplayer.
  8. Delterius
    I can understand this concern, because these days 'choices' are handled by a cut to the dialogue tree. The result is a unorganic world, where not every choice you make affects the story. It reminds me of how some games deal with morality, often you'll get to choose to save the dying bandit (Compassion) or kill him for the gold pieces (EVIL AAAAH), but wether you're evil or compassionate in this case, you had no problems with slaughtering other hundreds of them - its not like you were ever given the choice of incapacitating them instead and bringing them to a lawful trial. What I can say about it is to relax and try to comprehend the notion of a organic world. That reacts to both your actions and omissions. That dosn't have to highlight the 'good choice!' and the 'evil choice!' icons as you're doing whatever you're doing - be picking a dialogue choice or pretty much every facet of gameplay. So what we're asking here is if there's a orphanage on fire, and your character cares about that, you have some reason to go and roleplay. Urgency and the world's internal consistency are things that designers should aspire to - not cut because its not casual enough.
  9. Delterius
    Because roleplaying requires context. If context dictates urgency, but the mechanics don't, then you're robbed of a roleplaying opportunity. If you don't even act according to the story in spite that Gameplay and Story Segregation... then you're doing many things, except roleplaying. And in that scenario, I do believe his way of 'actually roleplaying' is preferable. Like I said I don't like being forced to do things or miss stuff because I'm taking my time with something. If I wanted to play a game where I don't miss content because of roleplaying, I'd player a linear snorefest. I can agree that inconveniences are not 'fun' in non-RPGs.
  10. Delterius
    This is your silly prejudice speaking, I happen to like Strategy and Action japanese games a lot. I just don't believe the misguided (though historical) use of the word 'RPG', pertaining to which games those are inspired by (80s american RPGs inspired the first 'JRPGs'). But that's no more than a opinion that I voice. Sure, the roleplaying potential of both J'RPGs' and a pure-gamist RPG are often similar, but the J'RPG' never had the idea of roleplaying driving them. The japanese were always focused on something else and the westerners have always shown preference towards player-driven story and characterization. If you analyze the interactivity that defines J'RPGs', then what little characterization is allowed for and only for combat does not get to define the character itself - generally the game portion of a JRPG is segregated from the story. There are definitions of roleplaying that 'validate' the JRPG, such as the simplistic immersion school of thought. But that kinda validates the entire interactive medium as roleplaying experiences, only confirming that the RPG genre sticks out as something focused on player agency. Hell, its no coincidence that some (if not most) of the best japanese games are actually labelled strategy or are old 90s RPGs that uncharacteristically allowed for player freedom. I'll stop derailling the thread now.
  11. Delterius
    Because roleplaying requires context. If context dictates urgency, but the mechanics don't, then you're robbed of a roleplaying opportunity. If you don't even act according to the story in spite that Gameplay and Story Segregation... then you're doing many things, except roleplaying. And in that scenario, I do believe his way of 'actually roleplaying' is preferable.
  12. Delterius
    Which is fine from a general stand point, but think about it from your character's point of view. They're part of that world, should they be expecting it to wait around for them? Choices are supposed to matter, and I think that the choice of inaction should be just as telling as taking an action itself. If there are Consequences to that Choice, then the choice of inaction does have enormous value in itself.
  13. Delterius
    Attempting to impose urgency when applicable =/= taking away the freedom of exploration. That's important. Most people probably aren't asking for another water chip - a overaching plot that imposes urgency - rather that some quests should resolve themselves if you're out for too long. There's this idea where its a better roleplaying experience when the player is free to cherry pick whatever story he wants. Its hand-to-hand with the modern comprehension that players musn't be inconvenienced at all, lest they lose their attention or self-esteem. I don't really like the idea of missing out on content because I want to take my time :/ I want to do the quests not have them solved for me 'Solved by themselves' does not mean 'solved for you': if you insist on doing something else as a child is in danger, that child may die. Going out of your way to save the child is roleplaying, not caring is too. Going to the other corner of the district to sell a potion or stopping to talk to someone and then miraculously saving the kid is sad gameplay and story segregation. Also, the idea of 'modular' content is a pillar of good rpg design.
  14. Delterius
    I disagree. I believe it is a core feature of RPGs and without it, the game becomes less of a RPG. Neither necessarily a bad game or RPG, but certainly not a point in its favor. Also, the so called 'JRPG' genre isn't really about RPGs. They are more like subgenres of strategy and action - roleplaying and player agency (hell, interactivity itself more recently) was never their focus. There are even some JRPG designers who are baffled about storytelling with any degree of player agency.
  15. Delterius
    It appears that modern design comprehends players as these vulnerable people, whose self-esteem breaks down at the slight inconvenience. The results of this pandering are many, but 2, I believe, is prevalent in the RPG community: one belongs to all gamers, that inconvenience isn't fun - which is ludicrous by itself to any gamer that likes the words tactical, strategical, deep and so on; the second is unique to us - roleplaying has become the player cherry picking the story. Those are the reasons why so many people, even in these supposedly 'old school' forums, are opposed to everything that isn't the player's agency evolving into Godmode. And that's terrible. Ideally, if a given quest has some degree of urgency in it, that urgency will impose itself on you. That's roleplaying. To deny that experience is like asking for a Silent Hill game without drama or suspense (just look at some of the more recent Silent Hills - hah). I am baffled by the rather nonsensical notion that realism has no place in a fantasy world and would like to know where it is coming from. All these world largely operate on real world logic and physics except where it touches magic or the divine. And nobody is even arguing magical explanations in this thread, it's just "realism? pshh, it's fantasy, old timer, what realism?". Well then **** gravity, it's too realistic. Key concept: Realism =/= internal consistency. A lot of people don't get this. Obsessive realism or simulationism gets us Hearthfire DLC. Internal consistency gets us the best roleplaying experience possible.
  16. Delterius
    Attempting to impose urgency when applicable =/= taking away the freedom of exploration. That's important. Most people probably aren't asking for another water chip - a overaching plot that imposes urgency - rather that some quests should resolve themselves if you're out for too long. There's this idea where its a better roleplaying experience when the player is free to cherry pick whatever story he wants. Its hand-to-hand with the modern comprehension that players musn't be inconvenienced at all, lest they lose their attention or self-esteem.
  17. Delterius
    No, the roleplaying argument.
  18. Delterius
    If the game's any good, you're not supposed to use your entire arsenal in every battle - rest spam is a sign of a bad implementation. You're actually supposed to strategically manage your very powerful arsenal, as opposed to casting crappy magic in every battle like a PvZ peashooter. Which is the case of a considerable amount of spells in D&D. Oh look, a real world parallel that has no bearing on anything whatsoever.
  19. Delterius
    This is disingenuous as all hell. The TNO's relationship with Deionnara is not what is currently understood as a romance in anRPG game and nor was it treated as romance in PS:T as far as I remember. So using it as an example of how it's been done right before is a ****ty debating tactic. I haven't played PS:T (woe to me) but one thing that sounds of note is how TNO's a defined protagonist. When you're a blank slate, some base and superficial characteristics are often pinned to your character to justify the romance, such as being attractive no matter what - causing people like me to perceive the romances as even more superficial than they are.
  20. Delterius
    Especial benefits sounds off the mark to me. But that the game acknowledges and changes according to wether you're alone or not is a good idea - things like the shared party experience being funneled to a single person, like in the IE games or quests changing or whatever.
  21. Delterius
    I'm pretty sure that they'd have to make a third animation where the right hand doesn't try to stab/slash/smash with nothing.
  22. Delterius
    That's exactly it.
  23. Delterius
    But do keep it ready. Anyway, the OP should've been more... subtle.
  24. Delterius
    That's not the suggestion. The thread's is about, if the story has you starting as a civillian, you only get to choose your class later. Essentially, there'd be a prologue which constitute character creation, weaved into the beginning of the narrative. I believe that's not a bad idea. But it can be irritating if you re-roll too much, given that the class system's going to have many choices.
  25. Delterius
    Yes. Which brings us back to number 1. Look, if anybody can do it right it's probably these guys. But do I want time wasted on such nonsense? No. Would I actually ask for it? Hell no. Would I start a thread insisting a cRPG include it? Oh, hell no. The problem's BioWare. BioWare adds romances to their games as a feature, after all people liked that sort of thing in Shadows of Amn so let's do that more often. And as with anything that is done because its popular, it ran the risk of becoming hollow - like Minsc's character becoming a one key note. And hollow it became: Romances have become more and more about stereotypes and less interactive. That, coupled with the idea that the player's hand must be held into every game feature culimanates in DA2. Where not even silly things like characterization stand in the way of the player's wish fulfillment. So much for deep, romantic stories. Instead, Romances should be a suggestion for the game's story. Nothing to insist upon, like a kind of combat system or whatever.
×
×
  • Create New...