'The Role we don't play' Opinion piece from the Codex

[Sand]

The question, fi I read RP's essay right, is that he claims there is little role playing in role playing games nowadays. That computer role playing games today are more focused on telling a story in linear form with a moderate level of interaction where computer role playing games in the "good ol' days" allowed more freedom. With few exceptions majority of the CRPGs from the good ol' days were hack and slash titles with very little interactivity. More akin to Diablo and the Gold Box games than Fallout and Planescape Torment. I think that RP has a pair of very thick rose colored glasses on based on his arguments, and when you are trying to make a solid critique of a subject matter the rose colored glasses need to come off.

 

The level of interaction between the game and the player has not overly changed in the past decade, but the type of interaction has. From being told what is going on with text, we are now shown through cinematics and voice. The level has interaction has not changed at all. Just the style in which it is presented.

[Gromnir]

The question, fi I read RP's essay right, is that he claims there is little role playing in role playing games nowadays. That computer role playing games today are more focused on telling a story in linear form with a moderate level of interaction where computer role playing games in the "good ol' days" allowed more freedom. With few exceptions majority of the CRPGs from the good ol' days were hack and slash titles with very little interactivity. More akin to Diablo and the Gold Box games than Fallout and Planescape Torment. I think that RP has a pair of very thick rose colored glasses on based on his arguments, and when you are trying to make a solid critique of a subject matter the rose colored glasses need to come off.

 

The level of interaction between the game and the player has not overly changed in the past decade, but the type of interaction has. From being told what is going on with text, we are now shown through cinematics and voice. The level has interaction has not changed at all. Just the style in which it is presented.

 

 

where X is a game development issue or feature, the appropriate first question is and alwasy shall be: how close does X correspond to the way TIM CAIN made FALLOUT?

 

forget that fallout ain't what codex represents, and that tim cain weren't the CREATOR of it, but...

 

...

 

btw, Gromnir fully concedes that the above is a hasty and unfair overgeneralization... just seems accurate most times.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Dark_Raven]

I'm just lost.

[Wistrik]

I don't mind cutscenes if they tell of events in some other part of the game world. For example, the cutscenes in BG2 showing Imoen's sentencing and imprisonment were nice asides to let me know what was going on with her and Jon. However, the first cutscene that showed our party escaping Jon's dungeon was seriously flawed: Imoen HAD to be there, and she ALWAYS cast Magic Missile. Always, no matter what. Things like that detract from the general feeling of "being there." NWN2's cutscenes involving Garius were informative, but the scenes involving a broken-looking keep (which had long been fixed up by the people working for me) were a big detraction.

 

Replaceable NPCs are a good idea too. It's silly to attack someone only to find them invincible, or to get a message indicating that you must reload and try something different. Scripts like SHOUT in the BG series are responsible for ruining many an evil player's game (or any player having an accident with an AOE spell) because it makes all nearby NPCs (who are also running SHOUT) become target-able enemies, which is a one-way street. Even NPCs with high intelligence will cast reason aside in order to join the common denominator in hating you to the point of death.

 

I don't mind some linearity in a CRPG because it takes a lot of time and energy to branch out into multiple plot threads, and the potential for bugs grows with each new thread. However, to have no alternate threads, or just two, doesn't seem like enough, especially in a game based on D&D rules, where at the very least each alignment, when role-played, could potentially produce a different outcome to the story. That doesn't mean every alignment would need to be supported clear to the end. For example, a CE character might meet a grisly death while attempting to storm a well-defended castle, but the LG character would be able to become its lord. Likewise there would be places a CE character would thrive in while an LG character wouldn't survive. Both would be uninterested in following a neutral course, which neutral characters would follow. To date, D&D-based games have either ignored alignment, or have biased the story toward good-aligned characters.

 

Some of my favorite games put the story before me, as well as the ultimate goal, but then left me to my own devices in order to reach the destination. Among those games are Ultima IV and the Starflight series.

 

I agree with the "less is more" idea at least as far as scripted events and things of that nature go. Create a living world, present the story and the goal, then let the player work out the solution. It's loads of fun in the few games that have pulled it off. Massive replayability. No need for a toolset.

 

(Reposted due to forum database error.)

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

[quote name='

[Sand]

I'm just lost.

 

Just go back to "Consoles bad. Trees pretty."

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Fallout is 10 years old, as is Baldur's Gate, while System Shock 2 and Daggerfall and more than 10 years old. Arcanum comes from a FAILED developer and Theif 2 and Stalker aren't CRPGs but FPS styled games. Morrowind you might have a case but it is a FPS/CRPG hybrid, and more than five years old.

 

Irrelevant. Design is timeless. If it worked then, it can work now. There's no reason not to. Also, your point that certain games are not RPGs is moot since the article deliberately presented solutions for what I perceived to be problems in the genre that existed in the medium itself.

 

In computer technologies and development, "nowadays" are software and hardware releases and development is less than 2 years old. Nice try, but no cigar. Also its not about it being not possible "nowadays" but is it worth the resources and cost in today's market. Its not the same as it was 10 years, Role-Player, and no matter how much you ty to use the Way-back machine you can't take the world with you.

 

"Today's market" is whatever developers make of it. You want to talk about market realities? Some commercial success, maybe?

 

Oblivion.

 

Same design you claim old or dead. Same kind of design I brought up in the article as an example of player input as a more viable method of narrative in CRPGs. Millions sold.

 

In the words of Volourn when he's isn't half drunk: Game over.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

[quote name='

[Sand]

No. Independents aside, today's market is whatever the publisher thinks will sell and orders from the developer, not what the developer decides to make. That is the reality, with very few exceptions. Oblivion is a sandbox action game with very little CRPG aspects in it. At best it is a simplified Action CRPG with a large area, though repetitive, to explore in. I rather play NWN1 than play Oblivion.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Sand

[Diogo Ribeiro]

By asking you to do so, I was asking for a more coherent and clear definition, because the one the article fails to actually clarify what it defines as narrative and the structure of narrative.

 

Then why not directly ask me to expand on what I had written instead of asking me to do something as if I had not done so in the first place?

 

They seem more like shallow examinations of three perceived methods used by developers, abounding with many empty comments and bold statements without any substance behind them.

 

So your criticism should have been

[Diogo Ribeiro]

No. Independents aside, today's market is whatever the publisher thinks will sell and orders from the developer, not what the developer decides to make. That is the reality, with very few exceptions. Oblivion is a sandbox action game with very little CRPG aspects in it. At best it is a simplified Action CRPG with a large area, though repetitive, to explore in. I rather play NWN1 than play Oblivion.

 

Even if it wasn't a CRPG - and contrary to your peculiar perspective, it was marketed as such - it would still be irrelevant since the argument was about the viability of the design regardless of genre.

[Pop]

A message from Payne 4 u <3.

 

*edit - Added "<3"

Edited March 31, 2007 by Pop

[Sand]

I still didn't like it.

 

As for your article itself, which I think it is structurally sound, it focuses on a false premise. In Wasteland and the Gold Box DnD games the player is often refered to "paragraphs" within the rule books. These paragraphs were well written to be sure but had zero interactivity even though within the game we could interact with in order to gain specific paragraphs. In my view these are no different than cutscenes. Both take control out of the player's hands and give us specified events. The only difference is that the cutscene is done so in a cinematic fashion while the paragraphs mimic that of a novel of short story.

 

Both share the same function, but different in presentation.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

As for your article itself, which I think it is structurally sound, it focuses on a false premise. In Wasteland and the Gold Box DnD games the player is often refered to "paragraphs" within the rule books. These paragraphs were well written to be sure but had zero interactivity even though within the game we could interact with in order to gain specific paragraphs. In my view these are no different than cutscenes. Both take control out of the player's hands and give us specified events. The only difference is that the cutscene is done so in a cinematic fashion while the paragraphs mimic that of a novel of short story.

 

Both share the same function, but different in presentation.

 

Yes. And if you'll note, that's why I slapped Volourn: I didn't spoke wonders of "old skool". In any case I'm not in favor of removing player control in CRPGs when it involves having my character do something against my will. Things like cutscenes are a pretty porwerful tool - just not adequate for every situation. "Cinematic fashion" is fine when it's not about the developers' idea of "cinematic coolness" messing around with my character.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Role-Player

[Sand]

You do have a point there. The point of playing a CRPG is to actually be playing the CRPG. There are two things I hate about cutscenes 1) I view them as exposition, and exposition is annoying and breaks up the action of the story. If timed right it can be very effective but sorry to say this but not many games have the timing just right. 2) They often do not make use of the game engine and use Bink video or some other nonsense, thusly breaking up the action even more, especially if the video in question is in much lower quality in visual presentation than the rest of the game. Prime example of that was Jade Empire and KotOR2. That is one thing I liked about NWN2's cutscenes. Some were very appropriate and used the in game engine which I liked.

 

Ideally there should be only two cutscenes in a CRPG. The starting cutscene that sets the tone of the game and the ending cutscene (which there should be multiples of depending on the story paths allowed). Everything in between, while still make use of dynamic cinematics, be in the control, at least control of his or her character, of the player.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Sand

[Maria Caliban]

I'm to page four and basically I've picked up is, "Cut scenes are bad."

 

Also, putting an article of that size in 9 point font is a poor design decision.

[Cantousent]

Ah, give RP a break. You know, he put it on the line and wrote a whole article for everyone to attack. That's a damned sight better than the vast majority of us.

[Maria Caliban]

Page 7:

" Text can be assembled on the fly by the game system, instead of being hand placed by the writer; although text such as verbs or specific reactions would require some extra time, they wouldn

[Maria Caliban]

Ah, give RP a break. You know, he put it on the line and wrote a whole article for everyone to attack. That's a damned sight better than the vast majority of us.

 

After reading 13 pages of article, I'll be damned if I'm not going to comment on the ideas in it.

 

If RP feels as though I'm attacking him, I am certain he can tell me himself.

[Cantousent]

Ah, give RP a break. You know, he put it on the line and wrote a whole article for everyone to attack. That's a damned sight better than the vast majority of us.

 

After reading 13 pages of article, I'll be damned if I'm not going to comment on the ideas in it.

 

If RP feels as though I'm attacking him, I am certain he can tell me himself.

 

I suppose you can damned well do what you want. We will all benefit from your chef d'oeuvre.

 

EDIT: For example, "I'm to page four and basically I've picked up is, 'Cut scenes are bad.'

 

Also, putting an article of that size in 9 point font is a poor design decision."

Edited March 31, 2007 by Cantousent

[Pop]

Really, it's nice that RP would put the effort into writing this and putting it out there, but that doesn't mean a reader can't come at it with honest criticisms. "Let's see you write an article" isn't an effective counter-argument, either.

[Cantousent]

I dunno. It just seems that folks have been piling it on the poor guy here. I suppose it won't do much good for me to raise the heat in the thread though. Ah well, probably not good judgment on my part to fight rp's battles for him. I beg his pardon, if not anybody else's.

[Maria Caliban]

I suppose you can damned well do what you want. We will all benefit from your chef d'oeuvre.

 

EDIT: For example, "I'm to page four and basically I've picked up is, 'Cut scenes are bad.'

 

Also, putting an article of that size in 9 point font is a poor design decision."

 

At least my comments are about the article. Yours appear to be about what other posters should and shouldn't talk about.

 

Are you arguing with either of those points?

 

Other than the introduction, the first four pages were concerned with cut-scenes and how they hinder role-playing. And putting a 13 page article in 9 point font is a poor design decision.

 

I admit, they lack the vitality of your comments. Perhaps you should post again about not wanting to drink your own urine in an RPG. You know, raise the level of commentary in this thread to a Cantousent worthy level.

[Cantousent]

Ah, now you're just trying to escalate our disagreement. Fair enough. ...And my comments regarding the freedom of action certainly did drive the point home, Ms. Caliban. After all, you cite my comments outside of this thread to attack my statements within it.

 

So, what we get from this is that:

 

I made the error of driving off topic.

 

You gleefully followed me and have made our particular disagreement as much the point of the discussion as I did.

 

My commentary is, indeed, much more vibrant than your own. This is a point with which I heartily agree.

 

and

 

I think the freedom to consume your own waste, in either solid or liquid form, is pointless and the design team should not sacrifice the resources necessary to implement such a feature.

 

I guess I have one more comment for the time being. I really don't care that I've made you angry, but it's probably not productive. Here, I'll apologize and even let you get the last word. I mean, as long as you can cram it all into one post, have at me and let's be done with it. Well, maybe even two, but then all bets are off. :Cant

[Pop]

Settle down people. You're neither developers nor are you writers of long editorials. We here at Obsidian don't have a ****list to air grievances, but that doesn't mean we can bicker willy-nilly. Be civil (you're being pretty civil, just try to be more civil)

 

Do you honestly want to bring on another pruning? Tut tut.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Pop