Diogo Ribeiro

Damn, I thought the thread title was about Goatse.

Of course, it's never easy to balance these things. Sometimes they can suck out the fun, as it were. But we're arguing immersion and for the most part it's bound to happen in many games no matter how balanced they are in this regard. Very true, although there's always the possibility of making something like not depending on critical NPCs to move the game and the story forward. Take the example of the character Jock in Deus Ex. Why is there even a need to tag him as critical and let no harm come to him? How many times did we interacted with the character face to face? I can only remember one (if I'm mistaken, someone please correct me), and its the first time players meet him. Despite interacting with Jock further down the road, as he is the pilot who will fly you from mission to mission for the larger part of the game, you don't physically interact with him, as he will always be already inside the helicopter. For this task alone, any secondary character could take his place. One pilot dead, another can take his place. Storywise, it's not like UNATCO couldn't get any other helicopter pilot. Gamewise, it makes no difference to players as they'd still be lead into the next missions. Any and all plot points which required Jock could be played by some other character, and could lead to different situations altogether. They didn't even need to branch out and present something like different paths; they could just play out differently. As I also said above, there's other ways to circumvent the possibility of players coming up with the immersion-breaking events. I already mentioned what could've been done at UNATCO to prevent the use of firearms. Something similar could apply to the Underworld bar. Or just use bouncers who pack more heat than the bar owner. Or have the bar owner (who was a former UNATCO agent) talk to UNATCO and strike a deal with them: they want to investigate the place, she lets them in with the condition that UNATCO agents won't carry any guns into her establishment so as not to scare away the clientelle. The developers themselves included other ways, such as leaving computer terminals with required info in case of players not being able to talk to NPCs. Some critical NPCs appear trough holographic projection and talk to JC Denton, even - another example of allowing interaction without the possibility of players screwing the pooch.

"Y halo thar i likes to say teh stuff about the Codex that's been proven to be wrong in the past but whenever someone points out i curl into a ball, suck my thumb and tell that everyone at their site mailed me male porn pics so I win lollercaust"

A better game? Arguable. More immersive? Quite likely, although I'm sure there's no short amount of (better) ways to actually prevent situations like these from becoming giant "LOL owned" signs thrown at us by the developers.

And on top of that, roast them. Great fireworks.

JC Denton the character doesn't exist as long as his actions and decisions are the player's to make. How can you ever judge what a character can do when it doesn't have a mind of its own? You can't possibly know what the character of JC Denton would do in most circumstances because the character is not self-aware and cannot, unless previously scripted to do so, make decisions or display a semblance of thoughts on his own. To pick up on your own logic, at no time does the character of JC Denton ever have a reason for not killing the character Jock because he never displays having, or not having reasons to do so. Again, the notion of a self-aware character is gone the minute he does not act, think or react unless I tell it to do so. The character pretty much is the player.

And it's now Exitium-free.

All is good. My feelings exactly. I agree, and think that this is one such situation which I'd like to see adapted to a Falloutesque roleplaying structure. Although I must say that while salughtering entire villages (or the entire gameworld) was something I rarely, if ever, tried out, it's very arguable if this is a bad or out of character motive for a character. You're assuming that there isn't any 'in-game' reason to begin with and that I'm talking about a choice with no background just made for the hell of it, or that someone's roleplaying is wrong because it does not adhere to your principles. Not only that, you're still not adressing the point. Once again, it's not about killing. It could be addressed to any situation where the player has the freedom of doing something but the game has no consequence designed for it - and instead of creating consistent restrictions so players cannot make the choice to begin with, or instead of creating credible outcomes to the decision itself, it creates poor situations in a feeble attempt to preserve the game's continuity. As the thread's title and the ongoing dscussion hint at, this is bad immersion. Does the game present the player with the necessary gameplay elements to bake cookies in JC's home? No. Does the game present the player with the necessary gameplay elements to 'kill everyone at UNATCO'? Yes. And if it can't accomodate for the consequences, then why give me the choices to begin with? The game doesn't have to accomodate to near endless consequences for the near endless choices (and reasons for said choices) the player may undertake. It does however, have to accomodate credible consequences for the very choices they allow me to make. If they don't want players to go beyond the limits they've included in the game, then don't give the players the means to do it. Simple. The character could infer Desther wasn't up to something good via the correct attributes. Extra dialogue options would appear to confront Desther if the character was perceptive enough, although confronting him would not bring any result other than "lol u r teh stinky go away kthnxbye". Why would character motivation need to be known by the game for actions the game cannot effectively judge? The game can't track down any motivation that it hasn't been designed to track down. Precisely because of this it can only track some events trough player, rather than game, initiative. And because of this there should be some care taken in regards to what exactly the game allows the player to do. Because not all motivations can be guessed, there should be an effort in predicting decisions we make and, if that is the case, present credible restrains on what we can do. If someone is roleplaying a psycho, and if his vision of psychosis is killing people but this is not accounted for by the game, who's to blame? If the person roleplaying is given the gameplay mechanics to do what he wants, then this is a problem the designers should have thought of from the beginning. If they don't want me to play a psycho, then don't create the conditions necessary for me to play a psycho.

Must... Get... Gamecube.... Can feel the precious... Callling for meeeee.....

I didn't call you an idiot, although bringing up the 'psyco LOL' line multiple times when that was hardly the point wasn't particularly bright. Of course there was a lot of freedom, especially considering it was a level-based game. I'm not arguing against that, and can surely appreciate what it did right. The ability to proceeded trough the game without needing to kill off everything that moved (anti psyco LOL) is something that I still love about the game, along with multiple ways trough many of the levels. This doesn't necessarily mean I should neglect the low points. Which in a way did the immersion thingy a whole lot better by making sure the choices a player would make would have credible consequences. More importantly, it didn't take away the meaning of the player's actions or considerably brought down immersion because it didn't want to risk the plot being broken - perhaps because multiple options had been accounted for, or because it was designed with a less linear progression, maybe both. The reason I can't do this with more games is why I speak up against its flaws so we get more games in the future that don't make the same mistakes. Oh, and Fallout and Arcanum while different in design do make this a bit better. Manderley was an 'actual NPC', and so was Gunther. And as I said back then, some of the NPC interactions are good but some (like with the above characters) aren't as good.

It was an above average shooter back in the day. What is your point? At one time in the course of the game, players are actually given the chance to kill Manderley as JC leaves UNATCO for good. Is JC less of a psycho then because at that point the game lets you kill him, but he's a full on psycho if he tries to kill him when the game doesn't? Please. To consider the point is merely about the act of killing an NPC is naive. The point is about the fact that you're presented with choices which the game doesn't have consequences for, and because of this resorts to breaking the fourth wall. It's about the game giving you freedom but when you try to exercise it the game won't let you. And instead of smoothing it out with smoke and mirrors, you hit a giant brick wall. If you want another example which will avoid your 'psycho' misinterpretation, it's the same thing that applies to Gunther when you're running away from UNATCO but wind up being captured. When you confront Navarre in the subway station and run to the exit, why can't you confront Gunther in combat and succeed in killing him so you can escape the first time, instead of having no chance whatsoever of surving the encounter and having to be captured by UNATCO? "It was designed that way". No kidding. Doesn't mean it was well designed. I don't give free rides to those, either. 'Why can't I have proper consequences to the choices which the game allows me to make?' Heh. Maybe when you finally understand the difference between wanting to slaughter millions and wanting the consequences of my actions to be consistent and credible, you'll stop coming off like a one trick pony.

Never played 2 to any meaningful extent. Last I heard opinions were divided between being more of the same with some serious gameplay issues, to being an improvement all around.

Children, you say? :bon4r:

A little something to get you going. Oh, and:

Yep. EDIT: IIRC, I played it when I still had my very old Voodoo 16 PCI.

It won't be roleplaying if you're not playing some sort of minigame during the sex scene. Something like Hot Coffee only with wires attached to your hands and genitals.

The Uninstall Wizard.

Actually...

I remember playing Soldier of Fortune and really getting to the point of fixating at polygon corpses. There was something strangely appealing about slicing dead bodies which would still jiggle and get additional cuts.

I'd rather they had designed the game in a way that considered the possibility of players trying to think outside the box and came up with proper contingencies, instead of giving the player possibilities he'll never be able to carry out. Played Invisible War? In the game there was an impediment to using weapons in certain establishments which, although would seem limiting, created the necessary background reasoning for it. You couldn't shoot anyone but there was a reason for this, and gamewise it was neither creating false expectations or giving a false sense of freedom. Whereas in the prequel, you could shoot everyone but there was no reason why they'd stand there, never dying - except because the designers hadn't actually thought beyond what would happen to the story if the player did something like that. Even a ginormous UNATCO assault squad coming into the office and pumping JC full of lead after he'd kill Manderley would be preferable, as it would provide a more credible situation.

Is there any reason why my actions are negated in hamfisted ways, besides "OMG designers don't want the thin line that holds their games to disappear!"? Putting on my robe and wizard hat. And equipping the ring.

Rockman and Forte Super Ghouls and Ghosts Demon's Crest

How can I feel immersed in a gameworld that doesn't provide credible consequences to my actions, or only does so when it supports its own existence or rules?

Well, the problem is that some interaction, NPC or otherwise is good but there are multiple instances of it being shot down by ambitious design that didn't got off the ambition part. Some of the main character's interaction is either limited by a giant designer warning going "you can't do this or you'll break the game", or just not taken into account by the game. How's immersion sound when you can't kill an NPC because he's been tagged as immortal and necessary to the story? Try killing Manderley or Jock, for instance: you just can't. They will only die when and if the game determines so. You also can't kill Gunther Hermann until a given point in the game, because he's treated as immortal as well. Which in a way begs the question: why does a junior agent who will die with two headshots need to save an immortal guy who takes out NSF troops and security bots with a knife? This isn't immersive. Neither is having to go find some door code because a glass door which you could just blow apart is tagged as locked and indestructable. For something many boast the game has - meaningful choices and consequences - it would be much more meaningful if you actually needed to save Hermann, rather than letting go off on a killing spree. EDIT: By the way, was I the only one to laugh hard at the fact that killing every NSF soldier on Liberty Island will not get me any noticeable reaction from Manderley, but if I talk to Sharon in the women's restroom or destroy cleaning bots he gets mad at me? Not very credible, either.

^Action/Adventure?