Making you feel like you're there

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Yep.

 

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

Edited January 6, 2006 by Role-Player

[Gabrielle]

Looks like an FPS but I might consider buying it.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Looks like an FPS but I might consider buying it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A little something to get you going.

 

Oh, and:

 

[Pidesco]

Isn't Soldier of Fortune 2 a lot better than the first one?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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.

[Nick_i_am]

Don't bother with Soldier of Fortune, it pretty much sucked.

 

If you really want to do disgusting things in first person then just get postal 2.

 

As for Deus Ex, the point was that I felt immersed because I tried to immerse myself, or rather, didn't try to do anything that JUST WOULDNT MAKE ANY FREAKING SENSE. 'Opps, turns out JC was a psyco lol'. No. On this logic Morrowind is the most immersive game in the world. ...which to some it probably is.

 

As for actions/reactions in Deus Ex, com...wait, doesn't just about every RPG on the face of the planet have immersion breaking crap like this? Sure, you might be able to kill the story critical dude, but even in these cases the devs still set it up so that doing so pretty much dooms you or just breaks the game, this isn't an excuse, but by the same argument KotoR can't even start be be remotely immersive. 'Why can't I go to every planet in the universe/why can't I hack of anyones limbs/why can't I moon the jedi council'. Again though, this isn't an excuse, but devs doing more work so that a few psycos can feel satisfaction in not breaking the game while they muder the entire population of the world, meh.

 

And stop projecting, Llyranor, you stupid stupidface.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Nick_i_am

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Don't bother with Soldier of Fortune, it pretty much sucked.

 

It was an above average shooter back in the day.

 

As for Deus Ex, the point was that I felt immersed because I tried to immerse myself, or rather, didn't try to do anything that JUST WOULDNT MAKE ANY FREAKING SENSE. 'Opps, turns out JC was a psyco lol'. No.

 

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.

 

As for actions/reactions in Deus Ex, com...wait, doesn't just about every RPG on the face of the planet have immersion breaking crap like this?

 

I don't give free rides to those, either.

 

'Why can't I go to every planet in the universe/why can't I hack of anyones limbs/why can't I moon the jedi council'.

 

'Why can't I have proper consequences to the choices which the game allows me to make?'

 

Again though, this isn't an excuse, but devs doing more work so that a few psycos can feel satisfaction in not breaking the game while they muder the entire population of the world, meh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Role-Player

[Nick_i_am]

As soon as you turn this from arguing over the points presented to 'you're just an idiot lol u can't see my point of view' is the point where you win.

 

Also, the point was always that I agreed with you, I just didn't feel that such things would break immersion because the average player (me) wouldn't try them, but actually, I DID try them, and loaded and reloaded the two instances that you described over and over, and if THAT isn't immersion breaking then nothing is. Go Go memory powers, but meh, it was a long time ago, and my impression of the game looking back is STILL 'oooh, I can find out Annas killswitch and blap her on the spot, or shoot her on the aircraft so that she never shows up on the platform'. Likewise the 'save my brother or let him get shot up while I laugh'. There WERE limitations, but there was also a LOT of freedom, and for someone who didn't enjoy morrowind it's pretty much the only RPG I can think of where this level of 'sandbox' applies and feels somewhat 'real'. The only other one being Fallout1/2.

 

If however, you can point me to a game that does it better, I would be interested to know.

 

Additionally doesn't the fact that I said 'for some reason I found the more 'RPG' sections (the ones with actual NPCs and not just full of baddies)' say anything to you, since all the flaws you pointed out were directly related to combat.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Nick_i_am

[Diogo Ribeiro]

As soon as you turn this from arguing over the points presented to 'you're just an idiot lol u can't see my point of view' is the point where you win.

 

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.

 

There WERE limitations, but there was also a LOT of freedom, and for someone who didn't enjoy morrowind it's pretty much the only RPG I can think of where this level of 'sandbox' applies and feels somewhat 'real'.

 

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.

 

The only other one being Fallout1/2.

 

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.

 

If however, you can point me to a game that does it better, I would be interested to know.

 

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.

 

Additionally doesn't the fact that I said 'for some reason I found the more 'RPG' sections (the ones with actual NPCs and not just full of baddies)' say anything to you, since all the flaws you pointed out were directly related to combat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Nick_i_am]

Yeah, definitely no arguments over freedom in Fallout, I do love those games, it was always just other niggles I had that stopped me being 'immersed', even though I was having buttloads of fun. ...and in psyco mode. Arcanum I need to get back into, but basically shared the same niggles for me in 'immersion'. In both cases I found the high reliance on stats/levels + the niggly combat and 'not entirely friendly' interfaces to be way more immersion-breaking than not being able to kill an NPC that would break the game. Sure, they both are but the first tends to seem more important to me.

 

As such then it would seem that it's way more about what in a game immerses us. It was really the atmosphere mixed with the 'illusion of freedom' that sucked me in, it COULD have been more restrictive than it was and I still would have been immerses as long as the restrictions either didn't get in my way or 'made sense'. Also, features such as 'rightclick to pick somthing up, dont just walk over it' to the 'pepperspray the lasers to sneak past them' helped hugely.

 

As you described though, there really wasn't enough of a sense of 'crime and punishment' that despite having an 'illusion of freedom' it was still very much assumed that you would 'do what you were meant to' that there was deviance in the path, but not in the result and, as suggested by your name, this would not be an ideal case for you. It would seem that THIS is what is really important to you in terms of immersion, that the world makes sense as a WORLD, not just a game with some freedoms...which really I should think about more before throwing my mouth around GUFFAW. Esspesally since I have ranted about exactly the same thing in the past, how important 'crime and punishment' is to a truely good RPG. However, this was not the first thing I assosiated with 'immersion' (for example, one of the games that has most immersed me in the world has been Homeworld). So yeah, I DO agree with all your points, I just wasn't clear enough on why I didn't find them to be immersion-breaking.

 

*huggles*

[Llyranor]

As soon as you turn this from arguing over the points presented to 'you're just an idiot lol u can't see my point of view' is the point where you win.

I didn't call you an idiot

You didn't need to point the obvious. He knows what he is :ph34r:

 

In essence, it has a lot to do with what the illusion of choice provides, and how well-veiled it is. When I played DX so many years ago, I wasn't really roleplaying or really immersed. It had some fun relatively open-ended gameplay. Yet, the feeling of being railroaded was definitely there. It was pretty obvious what the devs intended for you. Being able to finish all 3 endings within 15-30 min didn't help disprove that belief.

 

I was a pretty late bloomer for FO1/2 (about 1-2 yrs ago only, actually). Storywise, it didn't have the satisfaction that, say, PST provided, or even some console RPGs. I missed more emphasis on dialogue (blast me all you will, but I only found it functional, not 'great') or party members that actually mattered. Or a 'deeper' storyline. But what is 'deeper' storyline? Was I looking for melodramatic drivel that console RPGs pass off as story? I perhaps didn't realize it, then, but I really really appreciated FO1's plot. It was so simple - 'go find the bloody waterchip, I don't care where it is, just go'; and there you went - free to go out in the world, a blank state.

 

For perhaps the first time, I never felt this brick wall encircling the illusion of choice. I felt no restrictions, that I was free to go and do whatever. And, yet, I was *naturally* driven to look for the water chip. This was a choice - I was immersed. There was no railroading. I never thought to myself 'whoa, this is the best game ever', since I did have some gripes with the game (namely, those mentioned above, and the fact that I don't really agree with a turn-based system where you only control one character). Yet, at some point, I was realising that this was the 'perfect RPG' - not as a whole package, but in terms of pure roleplaying. The plot lead me to roleplay my way to the end of the game. I was exploring the world because I wanted to find the waterchip.

 

Arcanum (which I played before) didn't manage to captivate me in the same way. Sometimes I tell myself that I like Arcanum more, bigger world, more things to do. But, then, did I actually care about Arcanum's story? Dwarves crap? Huh?

 

Contrast with Morrowind. Thrown out in the world, free to do whatever you wanted. At first I was immersed. Yet, ultimately, I realized how utterly pointless and lifeless this whole world was. What was my character even doing? What was my purpose? Nothing was driving me, the main quest was a linear joke that I had no interest in.

 

PST is my favorite RPG, but that's because of its storydriven nature, not its roleplaying one. I suppose that as a pure RPG, FO1 should be superior. PST for me was more roleplaying within a storytelling context. In a sense, I can see why the Codex dudes have been dissing everything that came after FO. Despite this, it has its flaws.

 

Storytelling. Roleplaying. Thinking about FO1 again, I've been pondering design philosophies. Would it be possible to wed the concept of roleplaying within a storytelling context with storytelling within a roleplaying context. Somewhat of a FO meets PST (with KOTOR1/2 and console RPG influences), all while dismissing gaming conventions that detract from the pure roleplaying/storytelling nature of the game.

 

In any case, I've kind of lost my train of thought, I was supposed to talk about DX and its consequences. Roleplaying should indeed be allowed, but at what point? I think that roleplaying without consequences (hi Morrowind!) is ultimately pointless. If killing Mr Stupid in DX was not catered to by the devs, then it would be pointless to allow it. Of course, this doesn't mean we should applaud those devs, but they ARE the storytellers, and one needs to stay within their realm, else there's no point in even pretending to follow their story (if this leads to frustration, then their storytelling is frustrating, and they fail, period).

 

This is why, in a storydriven roleplaying game, motivation-oriented roleplaying should be what's allowed. If you go out of that realm, you're dismissing the storydriven nature of the game and ultimately will end at an impasse; thus further frustration. If killing Mr Stupid only made everyone in your base go hostile, and you would either die or kill them all, with no option to continue the story from there, then it's obvious the devs didn't cater to your action. To them, you had no motive to do what you did. But what if you did? What if you figured out that Mr Stupid was in fact a spy? Killing him would still destroy the storyline? Why? Bad design. This is analoguous to a lot of conventional Bioware stuff. For example, Desther being a bad guy in NWN. You pretty much knew it from the start, but the story didn't allow you to do anything about it, until the epic revelation. Same with KOTOR and finding out you were R-person. Lots of people found out early on (I didn't, go me!!! :D), but still had to play along because Bio wanted to show off their awesome storytelling skills. Let's look at those example. Most probably (aside from saving zots), the reason for those thingies was to promote a 'deeper storyline' ("we'll surprise the player with our super plot twists!!!"). Let's analyze it further. It leads to a frustrating roleplaying experience, because as a player AND as the protagonist, you've already figured out the plot, but can't ACT on it - because the game doesn't allow your motive for such actions; it's been dismissed. What also does it lead to? A frustration story, since it doesn't even work. How do you solve this? Better design, of course. You need to factor in all those motivations, allow the player to put in the pieces by him/herself and figure out the plot and allow motivations from there.

 

Wait, boohoo I don't want to roleplay I want a cool story!!! I wanna find out how I'm the Chosen One!!! WA WA tyranny of choice!!!!

 

BS

 

Why do we play games? Why not read novels? Interactive stories don't mean controlling the characters in battles, it means INVOLVING the player into the story. The plot in FO was made *stronger* because I was actively looking for the water chip and I *wanted* to. It wasn't forcefed to me.

 

Let's look at some other cool storytelling moments in gaming history.

- 'Don't trust the skull' - this was BRILLIANT. "Wait a tomb, wait, this is what was written on my back...... wait!" Definitely a defining gaming moment.

- Dak'kon and the circle of Zerthimon. Not forcefed, you had to actively work to figure it out, and that made it much more rewarding.

 

Bottom line: don't treat the player like an idiot (except Nick). Involve him/her.

 

I kind of lost my train of thought again, but let's see. Ah, yes, DX and its railroading. Murder the whole base and you have nothing else to go to. End of game. This is the equivalent of Bioware's "evil" options in the BG series (yes, you can be evil, but we'll screw you afterwards!!!). That's not choice, it's game-breaking. Why even bloody allow it if it ONLY leads to frustration?

 

In FO, you can murder everyone, I guess. That doesn't stop you from playing the game, I guess. You can stilll figure out alternate ways of continuing. This is good in terms of roleplaying, but despite how fun it is to roleplay serial killers, I'm not sure I agree personally with that design philosophy. Allowing roleplaying 'just because' has always been a problem with me. If the motive isn't really being considered by the devs, can the consequence really be anything more than superficial? In Morrowind, you can kill people. So what? Boohoo, some guards go after me. Boohoo, pay money, deal done. Even in FO, I guess you can murder whole towns or something. It'll be tough. But, then what? Okay, you killed everyone. Move on. Next. I don't really find satisfaction in that. There's consequence, sure, but it feels superficial to some extent. From a gameplay/roleplaying perspective, it can work ("ok, I've roleplayed that and done this, this makes these next steps harder, good - consequence"). But from a storytelling/roleplaying perspective, not as much. It works more for a sandbox type of game. What I would really love is that - if I *did* commit mass murder for a good motive, then the game would CATER to it. "Ok, I've found out that this cult is really bad, but I have no physical proof. They're going to do something really bad tonight, I must act first". Of course, action means murder. Of course, you can already do this. Roleplaying, sure. But then, a storydriven consequence would be very neat. "I'm being hunted by the law now, I need to somehow accumulate evidence that I acted on just grounds, because vigilante murder is justifiable). I want all this factored in from a story perspective. I don't just want roleplaying as a gameplay mechanic. I don't want the world I'm exploring to just be some mathematical formulas that I solve in various ways, and that's that. I want storytelling in my roleplaying, and roleplaying in my storytelling.

 

I probably have a lot of conflicting opinions in there, but that's because I'm not really sure what kind of design I really want in the end.

[Hell Kitty]

I'd rather they had designed the game in a way that considered the possibility of players trying to think outside the box

 

Killing characters when there is no in-game reason to kill them doesn't equal "thinking outside the box".

 

Things like being unable to kill Gunther is poor design, yes, but the game shouldn't accomodate my desire to kill everyone is in UNATCO any more than it should allow me to go to JC's home and bake cookies for the rest of the game.

[Hell Kitty]

The plot in FO was made *stronger* because I was actively looking for the water chip and I *wanted* to.

 

What if a player doesn't want to find the water chip? If someone finds the main quest in Morrowind as interesting as you find the main plot in FO, does that mean it's plot is as strong as Fallouts? If a player has no interest in the main quest in either game, does that mean the plot is a joke?

 

What if you figured out that Mr Stupid was in fact a spy? Killing him would still destroy the storyline? Why? Bad design.

 

If the game allows for you to discover that Mr Stupid is a spy (as opposed to you know Mr Stupid is a spy because you've played through once before), then it will probably give you the option to deal with it, and killing him may not be a good option, even if it seems that way from the players eyes. It's only bad design if the game doesn't allow you to act on the information in any way.

[Squidget]

This is why, in a storydriven roleplaying game, motivation-oriented roleplaying should be what's allowed. If you go out of that realm, you're dismissing the storydriven nature of the game and ultimately will end at an impasse; thus further frustration. If killing Mr Stupid only made everyone in your base go hostile, and you would either die or kill them all, with no option to continue the story from there, then it's obvious the devs didn't cater to your action. To them, you had no motive to do what you did. But what if you did? What if you figured out that Mr Stupid was in fact a spy? Killing him would still destroy the storyline? Why? Bad design. This is analoguous to a lot of conventional Bioware stuff. For example, Desther being a bad guy in NWN. You pretty much knew it from the start, but the story didn't allow you to do anything about it, until the epic revelation. Same with KOTOR and finding out you were R-person. Lots of people found out early on (I didn't, go me!!! :D), but still had to play along because Bio wanted to show off their awesome storytelling skills. Let's look at those example. Most probably (aside from saving zots), the reason for those thingies was to promote a 'deeper storyline' ("we'll surprise the player with our super plot twists!!!"). Let's analyze it further. It leads to a frustrating roleplaying experience, because as a player AND as the protagonist, you've already figured out the plot, but can't ACT on it - because the game doesn't allow your motive for such actions; it's been dismissed. What also does it lead to? A frustration story, since it doesn't even work. How do you solve this? Better design, of course. You need to factor in all those motivations, allow the player to put in the pieces by him/herself and figure out the plot and allow motivations from there.

 

A lot of the problems with this sort of approach are actually 'mechanical', in the sense that RPGs are inherently limited by their interface.

 

Taking the NWN example - say you figured out that Desther was an evil spy and not the good helmite he was attempting to be (though it should be noted that you couldn't do this without metagaming, as the game only gave evidence that Desther was an incompetent arse.) Even if that were the case, does it make sense that you'd just walk into his room and attack him? If you did, would you really expect the town not to go hostile, unless you'd brought them proof that he was a spy? Since there wasn't any proof it seems like this option doesn't really lead anywhere. I guess getting killed by the city guard might be more 'immersive' than hitting an invulnerable NPC, but probably not worth designer time.

 

Sure, you could add dialog options to talk to Aribeth about your suspicions, but once you start adding dialog options you inevitably spoil the plot for people who didn't figure it out in advance. KOTOR's plot twist would have been completely ruined had there been a "Hey, maybe I'm really R-person!" dialog option pre-revelation, because players would have seen the dialog option even if they hadn't figured out the plot twist in advance.

 

So in all seriousness, how would you suggest that a game handle the player figuring out stuff like this, without demonstarting future plot twists to a player who hasn't figured it out?

 

Further, how do you derive motivation from action - how does the game KNOW whether the player is attacking Desther because he actually thinks Desther is a spy, and not just because he's RPing a psycho? You can add different dialog options to determine these things, but trying to add a dialog option for every concieveable player motivation is doomed to failure.

[Walsingham]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the contrary, that sounds precisely like the actions of a 21st Century bureaucratic manager. Friendly fire is OK, but sexual harassment can mean a big law suit.

 

And, for the record, although I've played the game a gazillion times, I'd never even thought about going into the ladies!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

snip

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All is good.

 

Yet, at some point, I was realising that this was the 'perfect RPG' - not as a whole package, but in terms of pure roleplaying. The plot lead me to roleplay my way to the end of the game. I was exploring the world because I wanted to find the waterchip.

 

My feelings exactly.

 

What I would really love is that - if I *did* commit mass murder for a good motive, then the game would CATER to it. "Ok, I've found out that this cult is really bad, but I have no physical proof. They're going to do something really bad tonight, I must act first". Of course, action means murder. Of course, you can already do this. Roleplaying, sure. But then, a storydriven consequence would be very neat. "I'm being hunted by the law now, I need to somehow accumulate evidence that I acted on just grounds, because vigilante murder is justifiable). I want all this factored in from a story perspective. I don't just want roleplaying as a gameplay mechanic.

 

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.

 

Killing characters when there is no in-game reason to kill them doesn't equal "thinking outside the box".

 

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.

 

Things like being unable to kill Gunther is poor design, yes, but the game shouldn't accomodate my desire to kill everyone is in UNATCO any more than it should allow me to go to JC's home and bake cookies for the rest of the game.

 

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.

 

Taking the NWN example - say you figured out that Desther was an evil spy and not the good helmite he was attempting to be (though it should be noted that you couldn't do this without metagaming, as the game only gave evidence that Desther was an incompetent arse.)

 

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".

 

Further, how do you derive motivation from action - how does the game KNOW whether the player is attacking Desther because he actually thinks Desther is a spy, and not just because he's RPing a psycho? You can add different dialog options to determine these things, but trying to add a dialog option for every concieveable player motivation is doomed to failure.

 

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.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Role-Player

[BattleCookiee]

The worst "immersion-breaker" in DX IMHO is that when Paul asks you to join the NSF and you wan't to stick to UNATCO it just isn't possible.

 

I mean, wouldn't it be alot of fun becoming a MJ12 soldier and taking over power on the world?

 

And there would be a possibility to allow a game to be based on player gathered information, allowing all possibilities without reveiling the plot too early. It has been used MANY times before, and is "outdated" according to modern standards; it would be the typing of words into a bar when talking to a char, and some give responses, while others don't... (because the game just doesn't know those commands)

 

Ofcourse there could be a reason behind it it is no longer used this widely

Edited January 7, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[Hell Kitty]

You're assuming that there isn't any 'in-game' reason to begin with

 

Being that I was responding directly to this: "Try killing Manderley or Jock, for instance: you just can't." comment, I did indeed assume this. There is no in-game reason to kill a character like Jock.

 

or that someone's roleplaying is wrong because it does not adhere to your principles.

 

It's got nothing to do with someone elses roleplaying principles being wrong. At no time does the character of JC Denton ever have a reason for killing the character Jock.

 

t does however, have to accomodate credible consequences for the very choices they allow me to make.

 

The fact that the player is able to press a button to fire a weapon to kill an NPC standing in front of them, doesn't mean that the character has a reason to do such a thing.

[Lyric Suite]

Is there ever any reason to kill Manderley or Jock, besides "OMG I'm roleplaying a psycho!"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Haven't you heard? The universal meter in which to judge a game's inherent interactivity is if you can kill all the NPCs or not.

[Llyranor]

I pretty much agree on everything RPdude has said.

 

As for factoring in motivation and thus adequate consequences, the answer is intelligent design and writing. Don't treat the player like an idiot and spoonfeed him everything.

 

If you DON'T want psychos roleplaying themselves, DON'T allow it. Allowing it and saying "haha, too bad, you broke the game" is stupid design. In that sense, I actually see the KOTOR series as a step up in terms of motivational roleplaying (you can only kill some people when the DEVS have catered in proper motivation to do so and thus made some appropriate consequences) - counterintuitive, I know, but I feel it's going in the right direction (in some ways) in terms of storydriven roleplaying.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Being that I was responding directly to this: "Try killing Manderley or Jock, for instance: you just can't." comment, I did indeed assume this. There is no in-game reason to kill a character like Jock.

 

It's got nothing to do with someone elses roleplaying principles being wrong. At no time does the character of JC Denton ever have a reason for killing the character Jock.

 

The fact that the player is able to press a button to fire a weapon to kill an NPC standing in front of them, doesn't mean that the character has a reason to do such a thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Judge Hades]

I like role playing psychoes. That is one thing I like about Bloodlines. the abilitiy to knife someone in the throat at almost any time. The Elysium system works well in that game.

[Squidget]

I pretty much agree on everything RPdude has said.

 

As for factoring in motivation and thus adequate consequences, the answer is intelligent design and writing. Don't treat the player like an idiot and spoonfeed him everything.

 

If you DON'T want psychos roleplaying themselves, DON'T allow it. Allowing it and saying "haha, too bad, you broke the game" is stupid design. In that sense, I actually see the KOTOR series as a step up in terms of motivational roleplaying (you can only kill some people when the DEVS have catered in proper motivation to do so and thus made some appropriate consequences) - counterintuitive, I know, but I feel it's going in the right direction (in some ways) in terms of storydriven roleplaying.

 

So what are you asking for here, really? Was KOTOR's system really that different to RP in than NWNs (the story differences aside?) In KOTOR you couldn't attack someone unless the plot demanded it, while in NWN you could attack anyone but the plot-specific characters were invulnerable. Either way you're getting a clear OOC message that the NPC can't be attacked (a message which has no equivilant IC), so why is one really more immersion breaking?

 

Would D: X really have been a better game if you lowered your gun a bit when facing key NPCs and couldn't actually shoot them, like in Half Life 2? In both scenarios the game is essentially saying "You cannot make this choice, k thx", so is the question here really just method of delivery?

Edited January 7, 2006 by Squidget

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Would D: X really have been a better game if you lowered your gun a bit when facing key NPCs and couldn't actually shoot them, like in Half Life 2?  I doubt I would even have noticed a change like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Squidget]

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.

 

There probably are, but this kind of immersion tends to come at a cost of developer options in gameplay. Once you set the rules for what choices the player can make you've limited yourself.

 

System Shock 2 probably did this 'best', in the sense that there are never really any moments of broken immersion because you can't shoot some NPC. The price this came at was never actually seeing any NPCs face-to-face (or at least, never seeing any that weren't about to die anyway.) You only saw monsters and ghosts and voices, but never anything you weren't 'supposed' to kill that you could shoot at anyway.

 

Was System Shock 2 an immersive game? Sure - but at the same time, one can't really say it had any kind of player choices, and not being able to actually meet directly with NPCs was probably a part of that.