Which Play Style Do You Prefer?

[the_ragnarokkr]

I got to thinking about this after reading all the E3 interviews. If nothing else, I thought it would be a good time killer.

[Wormerine]

Ideally none of those, because they are very binary, and therefore such path is picked once, and mentaining it is dull, with clear cut choices (see all Bioware games). My fav. RPG roleplaywise are once when choosing a path isn't as simple - you create base goals and ideals by which your character lives, and try to go through the game and examine decisions by those ideals - sometimes you will do good, sometime you will do bad.

I am yet to see a straight up "bad" path done well. Being cruel, for cruelty sake never made much sense, especially if being good is just as beneficial. Not many games a brave enough to "punish" player for being nice. 

Pyschopath was never appealing to me, as combat generally isn't the most appealing thing about RPGs - therefore willingly engaging with combat, and locking myself out of the good part of the game isn't my idea of fun.

So I hope that marketing is just easy to consume representation of something more nuanced and interesting. 

[uuuhhii]

hoping for a wild space play style

player can choose to do things the way no one expected

Edited June 23, 2019 by uuuhhii

[Katarack21]

Basically, I play a decent dude whose very loyal and caring to his friends and try's to do his best to help people who need it, but to slavers and those who exploit the vulnerable my character is a gleeful, raging psychopath with no sense of decency or mercy.

[Humanoid]

If you've ever played Wing Commander Privateer, you know what kind of character I'll be playing. I'm just a tourist with a fragged nav console.

[the_ragnarokkr]

My ideal character would be an Anti-Hero in the vein of Mal from Firefly mixed with V from V For Vendetta mixed with Frank Castle from The Punisher and just a hint of Wade Wilson from Deadpool.

[Skarpen]

I like to play anti-hero or a villain in the games that actually let's you be one interestingly.

[daven]

Sarcastic Hawke in da2.

[LittleArmadillo0]

It usually depends on what character I have set-up in my head and the situations the game presents itself with. I already got an idea my first character. For my first play through I will probably play a  bumpkin with wide eyed wonder that is suffering from severe Goku syndrome.

[DekarServerbot]

one int male character that is focused on melee...

 

Me punches brains out

[Gfted1]

I always play the hero, I just cant help myself. The lone outlier in my gaming was KOTOR, where I played a Sith and chose the DS option 100% of the time regardless of reward or consequence.

[the_ragnarokkr]

2 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

I always play the hero, I just cant help myself. The lone outlier in my gaming was KOTOR, where I played a Sith and chose the DS option 100% of the time regardless of reward or consequence.

Couldn't agree more. I've always liked the Sith over the Jedi in SW.

If you really analyze it, the Jedi were closed-minded arrogant pricks that had a hierarchy fetish that worshipped the state.

The Sith embraced passion, creativity, freedom, and individuality. Did those qualities lead to bad outcomes? Sure, but the Jedi weren't any better. The Jedi were hypocrites that chose to hide the fact that a full-blown Sith lord was able to manipulate them and the whole damn Republic without them noticing.

Okay, I'm done with my rant.

Edited September 17, 2019 by the_ragnarokkr

[DekarServerbot]

On 6/23/2019 at 3:51 PM, daven said:

Sarcastic Hawke in da2.

It shows, you are the badass nobody that won't achieve anything in life and gets the butt all the time

well I played as Nora Hawke in Arcade Spirits so, CONGRATULATIONS: you have your own "chuck e cheese" like franchise with tickets comming out from Midway and Neo Geo machines without animatronics and a Sugar Daddy.

Edited October 9, 2019 by DekarServerbot

[Amentep]

On 6/28/2019 at 2:14 PM, LittleArmadillo0 said:

It usually depends on what character I have set-up in my head and the situations the game presents itself with. 

This is me.  I typically will create a character I think will be interesting in the setting and go with it.  Its part of why I have a restarting issue with character creation on new games as I will sometimes come to the realization that the character is at odds with the systems, and so rethink the character.

[gloomseeker]

I'm a chronic restarter so I need to find the character that feels right to me in order to get anywhere in a game. I usually replay the opening sections numerous times so that can get old after a while. 

I'll probably play some sort of free spirited trickster or rogue as that's the type I like the most in games. 

[DekarServerbot]

1 hour ago, gloomseeker said:

I'm a chronic restarter so I need to find the character that feels right to me in order to get anywhere in a game. I usually replay the opening sections numerous times so that can get old after a while. 

I'll probably play some sort of free spirited trickster or rogue as that's the type I like the most in games. 

I played spore that way

[MedicineDan]

I won't steal anything,  which means if I go into a village, a house, or a lone yurt, I won't filch so much as a piece of fruit.  In dungeons, ruins, or areas that are otherwise abandoned, I consider what I find as treasure hunting trophies and my prerogative.  If someone attacks me, I own what I conquer.  I try to negotiate with everyone unless they are unrepentant murderers or guilty of capital crimes.  NB:  I will still try to talk to criminals, but once I know they have no remorse, and especially if they are dangerous, they're fair game and I keep what I conquer.  I typically forgo rewards unless doing so would insult the giver or they start to insist.  Loyalty to my companions is paramount.

I like to play witty and charismatic characters. (Hey, since I can't be so in real life, I have to play one in a game!)  I prefer mages, mage-like characters, or, if it's hard-core no 'magic,' then a quick draw laser/energy weapon specialist.  I'm assuming the game is science fiction or fantasy.  I can't think of an RPG that didn't have some sort of option from above, but if I did have to play a game otherwise, I guess I'd play a sleuth or investigator or some such.

I agree with Wormerine, though.  The choices are pretty limiting.  I like to be a hero, then someone kills my dog and I scourge them and everyone they love from the earth.  Before there was Wick, there was Fallout.

[Celeras]

I don't know much about the types of choices that are going to be in this game but I have to say that I agree totally with wormerine. If the choice is going to be between a holier than thou cliche and an evil just cuz cliche, then I would rather not make a choice.

[gloomseeker]

8 hours ago, Celeras said:

I don't know much about the types of choices that are going to be in this game but I have to say that I agree totally with wormerine. If the choice is going to be between a holier than thou cliche and an evil just cuz cliche, then I would rather not make a choice.

That's basically what Bethesda did with Fallout 3 so considering we're talking about Obsidian I would expect this game to provide a little more nuance than that. 

[MedicineDan]

52 minutes ago, gloomseeker said:

That's basically what Bethesda did with Fallout 3 so considering we're talking about Obsidian I would expect this game to provide a little more nuance than that. 

It's late where I live and so it's quite possible I'm missing something.  I say that without rancor or subtext, but... why?  I guess I could create a wall of text, but you didn't.  Out of respect, I'll leave it at 2 questions:

1.  Why would Bethesda's past relationship force Obsidian to create less nuanced game right now?

2.  Why would it matter?  I mean, I dunno, I've read a few masterpiece works of literature and some of the best aren't exactly 'nuanced' in the way that people seem to take the term now.  I would cite Gogol and Dickens as just two.  Note:  please take this question as I mean it rather than an attack.  My flaming days are long behind me, so I'm asking what I consider a legitimate question.  I'm perfectly happy to hear an answer.

[Chairchucker]

2 hours ago, MedicineDan said:

1.  Why would Bethesda's past relationship force Obsidian to create less nuanced game right now?

I don't think that's what was being said. I think the point was just that whereas Bethesda tends towards somewhat binary choices, Obsidian tends to have more nuance. (And also better writing.)

[gloomseeker]

2 hours ago, MedicineDan said:

It's late where I live and so it's quite possible I'm missing something.  I say that without rancor or subtext, but... why?  I guess I could create a wall of text, but you didn't.  Out of respect, I'll leave it at 2 questions:

1.  Why would Bethesda's past relationship force Obsidian to create less nuanced game right now?

2.  Why would it matter?  I mean, I dunno, I've read a few masterpiece works of literature and some of the best aren't exactly 'nuanced' in the way that people seem to take the term now.  I would cite Gogol and Dickens as just two.  Note:  please take this question as I mean it rather than an attack.  My flaming days are long behind me, so I'm asking what I consider a legitimate question.  I'm perfectly happy to hear an answer.

You probably misinterpreted what I wrote or I wasn't clear enough about what I meant.

 

Basically Fallout 3 presented two major options, 1) save Megaton and be hailed as a true hero salt of the earth kinda guy/gal or 2) blow up Megaton for kicks and giggles and get a pad at Tenpenny's Tower. 

That's what Fallout 3 boiled down to (and the last choice at the end of the game was merely another take on the same options either be a psycho or be a saint and sacrifice yourself).

In all fairness The Pitt DLC did introduce some sorely needed moral ambiguity. 

 

What I meant was that knowing the complexity of Obsidian's past work we can expect something more elaborate and more nuanced. A little more subtlety than just blowing up a nuke just because you can or going out of your way to sacrifice yourself just because that's what Bruce Willis did in Armageddon (by the way I hope I didn't spoil a 21 year old movie for anyone reading this thread). 

 

In a computer RPG (just like in a regular RPG) the PC's motivation is of paramount importance. The game doesn't even have to cater to all the player's whims, it just needs not to stifle a player's imagination. That's probably the most fondamental difference between Fallout 4 and Fallout New Vegas. In Fallout 4 you play a guy who is a vet or his spouse who is a lawyer, you're forced into the role of a parent whether you like the idea or not. In Fallout New Vegas all you know is that you're a Courier but you're free to come up with whatever backstory that works for you. 

 

In regards to this thread, I do believe that it is important for the game to leave enough blank spots on the canvas so the player can fill them in and make the character his or her own. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by gloomseeker
typo

[213374U]

15 hours ago, MedicineDan said:

I won't steal anything,  which means if I go into a village, a house, or a lone yurt, I won't filch so much as a piece of fruit.  In dungeons, ruins, or areas that are otherwise abandoned, I consider what I find as treasure hunting trophies and my prerogative.  If someone attacks me, I own what I conquer.  I try to negotiate with everyone unless they are unrepentant murderers or guilty of capital crimes.  NB:  I will still try to talk to criminals, but once I know they have no remorse, and especially if they are dangerous, they're fair game and I keep what I conquer.  I typically forgo rewards unless doing so would insult the giver or they start to insist.  Loyalty to my companions is paramount.

Ha, I'm the complete opposite. I pocket everything that isn't nailed down, generally kill everyone that's remotely killable and behave like a schizo at the best of times in my interactions with NPCs. I also play a paladin archetype (or literal paladin if the system allows) in first playthroughs too.

I really only roleplay as LittleArmadillo0 and Amentep described in second and subsequent playthroughs. The reason is that as I'm first diving into a game, I'm constrained by the writer's ideas about my character and their role within the plot so I cannot know if I will be able to play the character I've imagined. More than once I've found that I couldn't after a few hours, and being constantly overriden by the writing has been immersion-breaking enough to lead me to abandon the game.

[daven]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

Ha, I'm the complete opposite. I pocket everything that isn't nailed down, generally kill everyone that's remotely killable and behave like a schizo at the best of times in my interactions with NPCs. I also play a paladin archetype (or literal paladin if the system allows) in first playthroughs too.

??????????????????????

[213374U]

Yep. 100% munchkin approach where in-game concerns trump roleplaying. I will protect you from great evils and so on and so forth, but will also take all of your valuables and possibly murder you later if the game allows and there's anything to be gained. Need to explore ALL the possibilities!