The good ol' times...

[Volourn]

Just like to point out Eldar's 'rant' versus SP in the last page automatically makes him a winner.

 

Listing your pnp credendtials is plain old fashion boring. Not to mention utterly unimpressive, and menaingless on a message board full of D&D geeks specifially, and role-playing geeklings generally.

 

P.S. PST is a role-playing game with some good choices during it. It's just the ending and the silly amnesia that i dislike about it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Irrelevant.

 

Amnesia was a requirement for PST's story BECAUSE the story was centered around it, not because proper interactive storytelling can't occur without it.

 

Besides, backstory != personality.

 

In any case, force a single avatar choice on the player and BG1 would have pretty much been the same story as a whole. Beyond that, it's just superficiality. In the same way, you could have easily made TNO female with a few adjustments in the story (mostly Deiodude and Ravie). The story was probably used as an excuse, but it just sounds like lazy design. BG1 was a disappointment simply on account of bad storytelling, not because you weren't an amnesiac.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How is it irrelevent ?

 

But thats true of any story where your trying to hide things from the player. They must be hidden from the character as well.

 

Both determine the other. Backstory can influence personality and personality can influence backstory. In other words you can be shaped by your experiences, but your experiences can also shape events.

 

But then my Darrius Khaine (Khaine being the Lord of Murder in Warhammer which I found really funny when I got to that stage of the plot) would never have existed. And I very much enjoyed creating an playing that character.

 

Would the story in BG been tighter if you had been a specific spawn ? Probably would have. But I wouldnt have swapped my character for anything.

[Llyranor]

Only if you want to make the assumption that mysterious past = better storytelling. I just find it a poor crutch. If devs can't tell a good story without involving the PC's past, they're pretty bad storytellers.

[alanschu]

I still disagree that it was your character. As I consider it an inherent obstacle for a game which has finite options.

 

Which is why I think comparing a PnP experience to a computer game is a silly thing to do.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Only if you want to make the assumption that mysterious past = better storytelling. I just find it a poor crutch. If devs can't tell a good story without involving the PC's past, they're pretty bad storytellers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Er....ummm... Joke ?

 

Sorry but PST was all about the characters past..

 

Sorry that took me by suprise I cant tell if your being sarcastic or not

[Llyranor]

Like I said, amnesia applies SPECIFICALLY to PST's story. Applying that as a general rule is just meh.

[Azarkon]

There is one aspect of CRPGs that's never been mentioned overmuch on these boards, but perhaps that's because it is too often the subject of hype: the combat system, and to a lesser degree, the character system ontop of which it is built.

 

CRPGs have always been heavy on combat. I don't think that this is merely the mechanism of market idiocy, but belongs to the overarching attraction of CRPGs. Very few games outside of CRPGs offer the sort of character-based combat that CRPGs provide. Adventure, action, and shooter games all depend on the player's reflexes instead of adept use of a character's abilities. RTSs rely on micromanaging multiple units/bases, and seldom involve substantial equipment collection / leveling.

 

I don't doubt the idea that many of the original CRPGs fans were, in fact, fans of the party-based (or character-based) combat, and could've cared less about whatever else was in the game. It's no wonder that action RPGs took off with Diablo: Blizzard North managed to distill that exact aspect of gameplay to a impressive level of refinement, and in so doing created the ultimate CRPG combat game. It was a huge hit.

 

I'm not inclined to blame them: CRPGs, at the end of the day, are *games*. Interactive storytelling is one thing, but there's a huge difference between a choose-your-own-adventure narrative and a CRPG: the former has a inhibitively narrow focus, whereas the latter is blessed with a broader range of gameplay appeal.

 

It's the reason I tend to rank BG / BG II as better games than PS:T. I enjoyed the gameplay in the first two alongside its story/characters. I only enjoyed the story/characters of the latter.

 

I understand that the norm of CRPG discussion these days is focused on the characters/plots/roleplaying opportunities, but by doing so I think we're ignoring a huge part of what makes CRPGs fun. After all, if you look back to the time of traditional CRPGs and roguelikes, you really don't find things like plot, roleplaying, and NPC development prioritized - combat truly was the single most significant aspect of CRPG gameplay.

 

And that gameplay, I argue, is also a significant reason MMORPGs are so successful.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Azarkon

[alanschu]

I think it's the social aspect of MMORPGs that make it so attractive.

[Ginthaeriel]

Personally, I think that PS:T and FF are both RPGs. They're both in the same vein. They are, however, quite different from Baldur's Gate games, which are also RPGs too.

 

I think the difference is not in some clear cut category, but rather a scale. A spectrum of linearity/flexibility in plot:

 

Linear<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Non-Linear

Final Fantasy games--Planescape:Torment--Baldur's Gate Games--Arcanum--Fallout 2--Fallout

 

The difference is how much the player can change in the central plot, and not anything to do with sidequests. The Elder Scrolls games are probably very linear in terms of plot, but very non-linear in terms of sidequests, which I guess you could call the "story", since you experience those through playing. But in terms of the main narrative, the Elder Scrolls games are VERY inflexible.

[ramza]

I have been reading all of your replies,and I noticed that you just keep turning in circles. Why don't you just admit that, while being a CRPG offering many choices, PS:T uses a different approach than that of the BG and IWD games.

 

In a sense, as Ginthaeriel has pointed out, PS:T seems more similar to JRPGs than the IE games. Indeed, you DO get a pre-generated character (I won't complain about this, because it is sometimes necessary to impose a specific character on players for the purposes of the story... I even tend to do that when I am the DM in p&p sessions - and it has never turned out to be a bad thing, despite my friends being relunctant with this at the beginning) and the story is more linear than one would think. However, one significant difference with JRPGs, is that you can make a great number of choices that affect your character, your party members, and your surounding environment.

 

Now, I won't say either that BG and IWD are the perfect examples of non-linearity in video games (if such a thing even exists, which I doubt). However, they do much better than PS:T. The other thing that I liked with those games (including NWN here) is that you get to create your own character(s). This is very important, to my opinion, for the immersion factor. You can "identify" yourself with the character and can feel the impact of the story and your choices on your character. When my character gets hurt or tricked, I feel mad because I have put so much effort in creating him. It is also one of the reason I play RPG: for having the possibility to manage my characters as I see fit. I hate being reduced to playing another one's story (just like in any JRPG, and to some extent in PS:T).

 

That was my 2 cents, but I couldn't resist putting it in this discussion.

 

Cheers.

Edited May 1, 2006 by ramza

[alanschu]

How is BG, or IWD for that matter, a non-linear game?

 

The only choice I remember having (though I haven't played in quite some time) is Marl in the bar.

[ramza]

The truth is that they aren't much more linear than PS:T. The choices we get are really stupid ones, since they don't affect much the outcome of the main quest. However, I feel more comfortable knowing that I am playing my own, specific and unique character. I have the opportunity to define him through some series of dialogue choices, even though they are rather unimportant. The difference between IE games are minor and mostly rely on the gameplay (create your character, create a whole party, or play a character while having a huge amount of choices to make). PS:T didn't appeal to me mostly because of its lame graphics and the weird battle/equipment/managment system.

 

I don't expect much from video games anyway. I just play them for fun, and am only looking for a decent story that will make me want to make it to the end (I would like to note here that I must own around 50 JRPGs, and I have barely completed 20% of them, since the stories didn't grab my attention long enough). On the other hand, I have completed most of the IE games (BG1 and PST remain due to the lack of time to play them).

[Diogo Ribeiro]

How is BG, or IWD for that matter, a non-linear game?

 

The only choice I remember having (though I haven't played in quite some time) is Marl in the bar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You could also choose hair color for characters. And which weapon you'd kill orcs with. And when to uninstall.

[alanschu]

Ah yes! The choice!

 

 

Given how popular the game was, I suspect it was quite unlikely that everyone had a "unique" character

[ramza]

Ah yes!  The choice!

 

 

Given how popular the game was, I suspect it was quite unlikely that everyone had a "unique" character

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But it's not a matter about what the others do, but about what YOU do.

[alanschu]

And your palette of customization in a video game is still finite.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And your palette of customization in a video game is still finite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Same in PnP your still limited by the rules and common sense.

 

Being finite is still quite different from being given a pre designed character and told to play it.

[ramza]

And your palette of customization in a video game is still finite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Same in PnP your still limited by the rules and common sense.

 

Being finite is still quite different from being given a pre designed character and told to play it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said, this is not the worse aspect of PS:T, since the way you control the main character through choices, is not much different from that in BG. Period. Besides, playing a pre-generated character is just as like playing any JRPG.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

As I said, this is not the worse aspect of PS:T, since the way you control the main character through choices, is not much different from that in BG. Period.  Besides, playing a pre-generated character is just as like playing any JRPG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

JRPGs are quite different in that the characters already have established personalities.

 

Playing PST is nothing like playing a JRP in that respect since you still have to go through the motions because the character provided cant remember his own name. But having done that, you still end up with the same outcome.

 

Difference as I see it is this.

 

In a JRPG you lose nothing by having a pregen anyway.

In a game like BG you lose the whole aspect of creation from the D&D rules. And having your own protagonist.

 

In both cases if you end with a pregen you dislike your not likely to enjoy the game. Where as if you have a character you create yourself, thats rarely a problem as people dont tend to create characters they dont want to play.

[Dark_Raven]

I dislike pregenerated characters. I must have control when they are created.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I totally roleplayed Squall's angst.

[Nick_i_am]

Yeah, I roleplayed that really creepy smile at the end of the game after that chick finally breaks his will to live.

 

Oh, and if you arn't 'roleplaying' because you didn't get to chose what your character looks like despite being able to define them in game, then you're totally not a shallow moron.

[alanschu]

And your palette of customization in a video game is still finite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Same in PnP your still limited by the rules and common sense.

 

Being finite is still quite different from being given a pre designed character and told to play it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The variations one can make in a PnP game that still stay within the rules are as finite as the possibilities of appearance in the actual humans (which is indefinite by the way).

 

Now that you mention it though, I definitely hate the restrictions that classes artificially place on me.

[Llyranor]

Basically, if CRPGs are simply just the poor man's PnP, then I'd take PnP over it any day. PST provided me with something PnP couldn't have, and I would replay it someday much as I would read a good book (INTERACTIVE storytelling, jerkface), whereas I wouldn't replay BG if paid me.

 

Any freaking stupid feature a CRPG can have, it's already been done better in PnP.

[alanschu]

I agree.

 

It's what jerkfaces do.