mcmanusaur

Perhaps the roleplay question for Infinity Engine games can be characterized as an issue of narrow scope; you roleplay a character in the context of the specific adventure that the game focuses on, and the ability to roleplay outside of that is very limited. Thus maybe Infinity Engine games are trapped balancing narrative cohesion and role-playing freedom, and it's worth asking whether these two aspects are mutually exclusive to some degree. That said, I don't think that a roleplay-tailored game along the lines of what I describe would be inherently less interesting from a narrative perspective, as it would simply be more player-driven. But when you have a game that is centered on a storyline with a finite boundaries, I can see how more holistic roleplay might fall by the wayside.

Right, I should have included some form of "RPGs as a learning experience or philosophical challenge" for question 2, but unfortunately I can't edit the poll any longer. The wikipedia page for cRPGs presents the main subdivisions of the genre as action RPGs, tactical RPGs, jRPGs, and MMOs... and I agree with you that the former are hardly actual RPGs, and I would personally say the same for tactical RPGs too (at best a cross between RTS/TBS and RPG). However, for me narrative linearity and dialogue choices are just not enough to define the RPG genre, as action/adventure games have increasingly featured these aspects as games have generally become more complex. That is why I, apparently unlike many people here, tend to see the "open world/sandbox" and "simulation of a living and breathing society" aspects as essential to the genre, as they allow your character to take on a role much wider than that of the protagonist of a single storyline. I could also see tradeskills and some system of character personality as contributing to the depth of RPG elements in otherwise combat-focused RPGs (for me, almost all RPGs are too combat-focused, not just so-called action RPGs). These are all things that in my opinion would contribute to the potential for actual roleplay, but from the earliest days of DnD-based cRPGs these aspects have been neglected (or initially not possible given technological limitations and neglected since technology caught up), so much so that even the people on this forum seem opposed to these things. Perhaps it's unrealistic for me to expect that people who are simply interested in a nostalgic throwback to old games -as much as I am also interested in Project Eternity- should have concern for the sake of the genre beyond the mostly stylistic and mechanical differences that distinguish the Infinity Engine games from modern RPGs. People don't seem to be here because they're dissatisfied with the modern RPG tradition -in many ways Infinity Engine games set the trend as much as I love them- but simply because they prefer the older ways of doing RPGs that have the same lack of freedom and single-minded combat focus as modern games (I share some nostalgia for the isometric perspective, but do we really believe that makes a fundamentally better RPG?). I don't mean to attack Project Eternity or the people here; if anything my expectations were a bit naive and Project Eternity will nonetheless be a step in the right direction. Over the years the RPG genre seems to have been hijacked by misguided player expectations, which were in turn built on decades of precedent since DnD was first transferred from the tabletop to the PC. I'm not sure how much hope there is for games that actually broaden the scope of how one role-plays one's character in an aggressive and innovative way, and thus I'm a bit pessimistic that RPGs will ever become more than a misnomer.

While I nonetheless expect this to be somewhat controversial, I want to start this off by saying that I appreciate Infinity Engine games for what they are, and this thread is not about what Project Eternity should be. Rather, I ask what Project Eternity is, which is very related to what Infinity Engine games are, or even more broadly DnD-based cRPGs. The reason is that I have noticed an increasing overlap in the past several years between the "action/adventure" and "RPG" or "role-playing game" genres, and it got me thinking about what the difference between them actually is. The obvious realization is that most players don't actual roleplay in any significant capacity when they play so-called RPGs, so where does that leave the genre? Certainly some of this apparent contradiction might have to do with the fact that different players define role-playing differently, but there are certain a substantial proportion of player who can hardly be said to roleplay at all. In some ways I think action/adventure games and role-playing games might exist along a spectrum, with the ideals of one genre at either end, and most games inhabiting the continuum in between. Where do Infinity Engine games, or Project Eternity, fall on this spectrum? I for one feel that the amount of combat focus (which perhaps just comes with any DnD-based game) is somewhat action/adventure-oriented, and at times the games feel more linear than some others that feature more open worlds. Additionally, certain aspects of characters are de-emphasized and the interactivity of the world is quite limited (ability buy property and so on). This leads me to believe that the majority of games marketed as RPGs are in fact action/adventure games glorified in certain manners, rather than games designed with holistic roleplay in mind. Please leave your thoughts on these questions and vote in the poll as I am sure the results will be quite informative to me.

The thing is, one cannot 'prove untrue' something which does not purport to be a statement of fact. Having said that, one can easily subvert this 'rule' by introducing into a situation people with different desires and wants. For example, a rapist might state that because he wants people to have sex with him, it is OK for him to have sex with other people, even though they might not necessarily want that. Even leaving aside extreme examples such as the aforementioned hypothetical rapist, modern society tends to set limits on free will and self ownership based on certain conditions. For example, a child may want to go out joyriding with his mates, but society dictates that he is not permitted to do this without a certain laminated card bearing his photo. He also may not exercise his free will to have a few fermented beverages beforehand. Then again, there is the school of thought that places humans as just another animal in the animal kingdom, with no more significance given to someone offing a neighbour who irritates him by driving a noisy car than one would attribute to a lion eating a gazelle. That was exactly my point though. With your example of a rapist, they are displaying a form of hypocritical egotism. While they might welcome sex, and force it on others--they will not likely approve of their victim killing them in self-defence. Refusing to allow someone to kill you, yet not acknowledging another's right to refuse your "advances" is a contradiction. Society has very little to do with what is morally right and wrong. Laws are about control, not good or evil. That being said, we might want to continue this exchange though PM. While I'm late to the thread, it doesn't need my help staying derailed. But the rapist is actually following the Golden Rule, it's the person killing him who's not. I'm familiar with the point you're trying to make, but...

See http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62934-what-will-the-real-name-be/.

"An Eternal Instant", by Incorporeality Incorporated using the Infinitesimal Engine

Another sexism thread derailed into the realm of "reverse sexism"... I'm quite skeptical the thread will return back on-topic so perhaps the thread has exhausted its usefulness.

While I'd still be interested in supporting the game and such, I feel that it is a professional developer's responsibility to stay true to stretch goals. Ultimately there should be sufficient planning that such goals shouldn't be offered in the first place if they weren't feasible.

For me some form of bigotry is a must in a mature and convincing fantasy setting, but whether its Morrowind-esque xenophobia or something more familiar like sexism or racism is another question. Personally I prefer a xenophobic setting to one in which you have the same old "elves hate dwarves and dwarves hate elves, but both hate orcs" flavor of racism. I think it's most interesting when the aspects of a society that differ from real life give rise to forms of bigotry that would not exist in real life. For example, magic could conceivably be something of a class divide, though most of the people I see suggesting this seem to be doing so in an attempt to glorify their invariably magic-using characters. I'm unsure whether reincarnation is a thing in Project Eternity what with all the souls business, but if it is then perhaps there could be discrimination based on one's past lives; forgive me if some other game has already done this. That to me would be really interesting and would beg the philosophical questions of responsibility/accountability along with more lore-centric issues. I like the idea that the PC in particular is the victim of discrimination, rather than simply observing bigotry elsewhere in society. As far as having racial or even gender bonuses, these cannot exist in my opinion without some form of bigotry. If one race is objectively more intelligent than another or one gender is objectively stronger than the other, then there's really little excuse for there to not be racism or sexism. I'm not saying such bonuses are necessarily a good thing, mind you.

This thread feels eerily familiar...

Well, let's be fair here; top-down and bottom-up worldbuilding both have their place. Perhaps what you're saying is more of a deductive vs. inductive approach, but still I can't see that either one of those is inherently better than the other, and all games do both to some extent.

Unfortunately, simply arranging nine types of emotional reactions into a dubious grid is like trying to fit square pegs into round holes. This is because these terms and most of their kind are cultural constructs that have been created to differentiate qualitatively distinct experiences that do not necessarily exist along any sort of continuum. While the system you have suggested could produce interesting and colorful results, its internal logic is a bit lacking in my opinion as it draws a false dichotomy between emotion and practicality. The conception of attitudes that prevails in modern psychology is (similar to what some have suggested) that the level of positive feelings toward something and the level of negative feelings toward something are independent from each other. Thus you get something like this: Positivity Negativity Apathy Liking Disliking Ambivalence Even if this system is more structurally sound, it may not produce very interesting results. However, one could even include a third variable of certainty; how valid a person believes a feeling is can be distinguished from how strong that feeling is. At any rate, both of these models focus primarily on single NPC's relationships with the PC. If we're talking about general reputation, that could be slightly different. One's level of fame and one's moral standing are definitely different things, as we can have one kind of attitude without the other. However usually the former only shifts as the PC progresses through quests rather than as the result of any conscious choices on the PC's part; perhaps PE could do that a bit differently. For strictly moral reputation the tried and true good vs. evil and lawful vs. chaos isn't too bad, although I'd tend to phrase the latter dichotomy as principled vs. unscrupulous, but even that gets a bit confounded since we have such encompassing views of good and evil in our culture.

I think KotOR did this well enough; it felt like your character was someone who other members of the company may have had little interest in being around if not for what was on the line. Though in medieval fantasy settings it seems people tend to be more concerned with playing the super likeable leader type of role. For me what would be more interesting than romances between PCs and NPCs is romances that develop between NPC party members, but that's another discussion.

First, why make a thread discussing ten different things? Second, I stopped reading when you implied that magic is overlooked, and uneven class "balance" is a good thing. That's seriously... just dumb. Why should someone be penalized for not wanting to be some generic ego-indulging (for the player, I suspect) "badass" fireball-tossing wizard. To me mages are simply the most boring classes, and if characters can make their way using the giant non sequitur of magic (that's all it is) then at least other characters who choose more authentic sources of power shouldn't be beholden to the mages and their dubiously manufactured awsum. TL;DR- magic gets too much attention as it is, and uneven class balance is bad and you should feel bad

Isn't this like saying the most important thing that makes an album great is music? I voted choice and consequence because if there's no freedom to choose a role you're really not roleplaying in any significant capacity. Immersion and such are a close second, because ultimately roleplay can happen without immersion, even if it's difficult and unrewarding.

The name of this thread reminds me of an academic journal article, but I think I support the concept anyway.

Nice, I've just got a few additions: Minecraft: -Physics Temple Run: -Sense of Urgency DDR: -Importance of Timing WoW: -Party Raids Call of Duty: -Community

Level-scaling is evil. That's all I have to say.

I'm pretty sure anyone who writes travel guides for a living would disagree. Funny thing is, I do agree with your basic point. I find both sides of the argument meritorious, but I personally tend to enjoy walking through a seamless city a bit more than one where I'm constantly being confronted with loading screens, even if the city feels smaller than a real city. It's always going to feel smaller, after all. Skyrim's cities didn't bother me, though I can see why they bothered a lot of people. I took them as abstractions; other people didn't. Both reactions are valid. EDIT: Misread, sorry. Well, when we want to start using travel guides as inspiration for an RPG, I don't know what to say.

inb4thissurprisetwistisunfairbecauseIwascleveranditdidn'tletmepreventithappening!

I think we can all agree that while we may differ on how we'd do it, if it's in the game, it better had content worth exploring. Yes, we can agree, as much as the people arguing against me love to frame my position as "he wants a bunch of areas with a bunch of empty and identical huts!". My point is that there's no reason one part of a city should have content and another part shouldn't, since it's all city with people running around. And if we don't want to have to deal with a big city, why do we want one in the game? To be able to say "my characters traveled all through the big city and met all the people, but my attention span was too short to follow along"?

Exactly. And only seeing commonfolk housing districts from a distance and not being able to see them outside of that supports the notion of commonfolk housing districts as a generic form of non-significant city area rather than a unique city area in and of itself. So you admit that what you're arguing is rationalized by the close-minded stereotypes that RPG players have adapted due to the biases of past RPGs?

Methinks you're not quite up to speed on what a metaphor is. Also, the point was that, even though you COULD physically climb and traverse the mountain, you don't need to do so, because there's nothing important there. Not that a city strictly resembled a mountain. Just like the cutting off your arms thing. The point was that the game has no need to provide you with the opportunity to cut off your own arms. Arguing that it is some kind of crime or appalling that the developers of the game force you into a linear path simply by preventing you from traveling to every square inch of a city is akin to saying "They didn't put fishing boats in, so I can't paddle out to the middle of this lake and fish! But there's a lake right there! I should be able to do that! They're forcing me to decide that's unimportant!" No, what they're doing is building a finite world, from scratch, and they can either build a tiny world, or build an appropriately-sized world and understand that you're not going to go literally every place in the entire world, since this isn't Cartography Quest VIII. Then please enlighten me as to what a metaphor is. We're not talking about fishing or mountain-climbing here, we're talking about one the two supposedly "big" cities. If you're a creative designer and you have to cut out 70% of a city because you don't have any ideas to make interesting content for it, maybe you should reevaluate your career. The idea that you can isolate the "interesting" parts of a city apart from the "boring" areas is complete lunacy, and the fact is that in the case of different areas of a city the one's left out can contribute as much content as what's included.

The devs can only make a certain amount of game content within their budget and time constraints, so I'd like them to make all of it "count". Fleshing out big city districts full of commoner's homes with nothing interesting or useful to explore whatsoever, just so you can have your open-world sandbox feeling, would be a waste of resources in my opinion. PS: Who said anything about restricting you to a "linear path"? Did Athkatla feel "linear" to you? Have you guys ever actually walked through a city built during the Middle Ages? It's not as if you can just say, "this is where the interesting stuff ends, and the boring stuff begins". That's the most artificial and stupid thing. If the part that they would be including would be uninteresting, all that says is that whoever has conceived the city in the first place did a bad job. Every part of a big city is interesting, and it's not just a question of certain sections of town containing a bunch of peasant hovels (which are out in the countryside). The idea that you can separate interesting and boring stuff within a city is ludicrous.

I understand. For what it's worth, I firmly believe there are both subjective AND objective aspects to immersion. I try my best to completely ignore the subjective (even trying to rule out my own preferences as best I can) when discussing such things like this, because it is rather pointless. To converse and share subjective views? Not pointless. To debate subjective views? Quite pointless. Who can say whether or not blue is prettier than red? I have no idea. With the graphics thing, that is true. But, you've gotta look at it this way, too: They don't HAVE to do the graphics they way they did the graphics. Wii graphics suck, right? Relative to all other systems? Yup. But Metroid Prime 3 was pretty amazing-looking. You could even see a quite-detailed reflection of Samus's face on the inside of her helmet visor. And the game made you feel like you were running around in this awesome Chozo suit, being Samus. So, I look at games like that, and I think "If they did that on a Wii, why do other people act like graphics have to take up 90% of a 40-million-dollar budget in most games?" If your graphics aren't supporting the artistry of the game's design, then you need to do them differently. It's really as simple as that, as far as a decision. Doing the graphics, not so simple. 8P But, basically, immersion is more about not breaking it than it is about building it up. Shopkeeper just stands at his stall all day long, 24/7: Not very immersive. I can't believe that that's in any way feasible (granted, it's a very minor issue, but an example nonetheless). Shopkeeper SOMETIMES leaves and goes home to sleep? That's better. I don't even need to see where he goes. But, if I never see him leave, ever, and he's just always there, at all hours of the day, then I can't even believe he ever goes anywhere, much less to his home, which is somewhere in the city, where his family lives. And yeah, there are certain things that people talk about (like menus) that are ridiculous to even bring up. That's like saying "My own brain prevents me from being immersed, since I can see the edges of my computer monitor, and the stuff on my desk, and things around me, and I feel the need to pee sometimes, etc.". "Immersion" does not automatically = "true to life simulation." It simply means "coherence," for the most part. You establish a world, and then you support that world. You establish characters that the player can control and experience things via, and you support that. That's all. Well, technically only seeing the shopkeeper while he's at work, and not being able to see him outside of that, supports the notion of shopkeepers as a generic form of NPC rather than a unique character in and of themselves, which should be the ultimate goal with any character, even if it's completely far-off and impractical. If the resources of PE are such that something can't be given adequate depth to be interesting, by all means do not devote attention to it, but before we as the players tell the developers to not devote their attention to stuff (as in the example of this thread), let's let them make the decisions about what they have the resources for. Since if we go about in such a way we might just be asking for less than we could have gotten otherwise, just because some guy with a strong agenda decided to make an anti-suggestion thread (not specifically directed toward the OP).