What mold should be broken?

[Seagloom]

Regarding things like discrimination (Legion antagonizing female PCs, etc.) I think it is important to retain those elements in games because I just happen to ascribe to a sort of post-structuralist orientation w/r/t power. I have an intense dislike for the power fantasy aspect of most recent RPGs, in which your character might be of some sort of minority group but you as an individual are able to bypass all the structural barriers that members of your group face daily (Dragon Age, etc.) Games like Fallout 2, though they aren't perfect by any means, serve an important functions. You enter the testosterone-drenched crime family strongholds in New Reno and you will be continually disrespected, maybe even turned away outright. That's something that happens to be people all the time, but it makes gamers uncomfortable. I played it as an 11-year old and that was the first time I realized that it might severely suck to be a woman a lot of the time.

 

I know Josh is up to the task with this stuff though. He's gonna blow some minds.

 

I kind of sort of agree with this? I do think games can shy away from content that could ruffle feathers too often. I thought New Vegas dropped the ball here, in fact. Working for the Legion as a woman felt like a push, and the ending slides made it sound like there weren't even any consequences for the PC.

 

At the same time, this sort of thing can be very hurtful depending on personal experience. At their core, video games are entertainment. For some of us they are escapist entertainment. In real life, women deal with a bevy of social issues on a regular basis--many of which have a hugely negative impact on their development and later, their adult lives. Getting to play a game where you don't need to deal with that as much, kick ass, and get to live a power fantasy is not only fun, it can be cathartic.

 

That isn't to say I think all sensitive topics should be shied away from. Only that they should be handled with consideration for your entire audience. It's a tightrope that is all too easy to fall off from in pursuit of "mature" storytelling. Striking the right balance is tough. I think writers should keep trying to get it right. I just hope they are actually trying when they do, and not settling for weak shock value to garner attention.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Seagloom

[Nonek]

One mold that I would happily see broken, stamped upon, laughed at in derision and cast down into Tartarus would be the cutesy John Whedon characters and dialogue, god knows why people believe these infantile "witticisms" are indicative of good writing. The only character of New Vegas that I just had to shoot in the head and then cut up with the chainsaw (just to be sure) was Veronica. Gods how I hated that woman. Now Cass, her I loved, what a woman.

[KenThomas]

Dialogue

Regular people share parts of a huge knowledge pool. Besides the traditional dialogue window, a kind of "google autocomplete searchbox" displays possible questions relating to the key words typed in.

E.g. "Mr. X" would permit the questions: "What do you know about Mr. X?", "Where does Mr. X live?", etc.

Not a fan of this idea. It's reminiscent of the old King's Quest games where you have to sit there typing for a while being like "hmm how did Roberta Williams phrase what we both know we already want this character to do?". I prefer set dialogue with set reactions where they can focus on having a good strong story. All that this method of dialogue would bring is getting the same canned answer from 80% of the people you asked and having to hear that repetitive crap over and over again until you finally got to the npc that said something different. Not fun.

• Choices
  

Some painful, some impossible, and some to be proud of

 

Example: "You paid dearly for doing the right thing. As a child slave, you decide to help a friend avoid punishment. You get caught and your hand is chopped off in retribution. Later on, you can't use bows and 2h-weapons. Furthermore, the wound is a stigma of a caught and convicted petty thief."

In the later game, those friends' actions have special significance to the player, and create immersion. If later on a magic liquid metal hand that restores lost abilities, can shapeshift and execute killmoves happens to be found, it'll be enjoyed all the more.

On the other hand, any injury can be avoided by not helping the friend in the first place.

 

Not paying attention makes it easy to inadvertently go down the wrong path. You want to be a good guy? Be prepared to swallow rage and forsake the satisfaction of vengeance. Vigilante killings are recognized as such by society. It's not easy to be just, and almost impossible to entirely avoid being manipulated. Prudent choices such as "bringing someone in" instead of killing them outright are available. It's impossible to succeed every time, and players are confronted with moments of intense frustration.

Cool idea for character generation. With regards to morality however, it is my opinion and something I've noticed from Obsidian before is that they're aware that sometimes the "good" action IS to take action / be violent and eliminate someone or something that if left alive is going to cause a great deal of harm by simply existing. Something I've liked about Obsidian's writing in the past is that morality is relative. Sometimes the "bad" action is the one that brings about the outcome that's the most "good" in the end.

Combat

• 
   
  

 

 

Different armors equal different strengths and weaknesses.

I was playing Dark Souls quite a bit recently. One of the things that was great about that game was that a lot of the way your character moved and fought was determined by your armor and weapons. It allowed for tremendous flexibility.

 

• Romance
  

A true romance (and with good reason not everyone wants to go there) seeps out of the confines of dialogue. Combat changes, as do expectations from partner and party. Interaction is more frequent and natural. A darker side of romance is the power to influence/manipulate/control one's partner, and some evil bastards take advantage of that.

 

I would also enjoy seeing this put into the game. Most games have romance tacked on instead of truly incorporated.

• 
   
  

[Valorian]

_{For starters, level scaling should be broken into little pieces and put where it belongs: in the dumpster of abominable gameplay mechanics. Although, I'm almost certain that project Eternity's soul won't be tainted with this abomination.}

[Badmojo]

I give a big negative to the idea of timed quests. I know in the real world time is a factor, but I hate being RUSHED into something. I like to explore, smell the roses, do everything. I do not like to feel I have to skip stuff in fear of the all mighty clock. That does not create fun tension, that just annoys me and makes me want to stop playing.

 

I do like the idea of factions being consistent, like the legions in FNV being sexist because that is their phylosophy. it fit, I always found RPG's unrealistic when there is no sexism, racism, drug use...etc. All the bad things that exist in the world and has existed since the dawn of time, yet in these settings everyone works together just fine. I want to see these subjects explored in the game.

[KenThomas]

Re: Factions, I thought Obsidz did a pretty good job in FONV. Yes, the Legion was more or less abominable for female characters (or for any character / player with a principled opposition to slavery) but the faction's philosophy was internally coherent. There were reasons they did the things they did - it wasn't necessary that those reasons actually justified their actions, just that their actions made sense (and the Legion's did, ultimately). That's the difference between, say, the Master's Army and some random D&D orc tribe - the Master sought domination for reasons, the orc tribe seek domination because that's just the way orcs are. They're just violent. That's not compelling.

 

Likewise, the NCR was meant to elicit a reflexive, sympathetic response from most players in the same way the Legion is meant to be repulsive and frightening - their ostensibly republican values are common first principles among players, especially in America. But like the Legion, as you go through the game you learn that they aren't just "the way they are". They're intemperate, greedy, wasteful, and immensely dysfunctional (like some western democracies you'd care to name). Your preference for them might not change, but you don't have to do a 180 on a faction in order for that faction to be well-realized.

 

In New Vegas I did two playthroughs. The first one I supported Mr. House because his long term goals offered the best potential future for humanity. The second playthrough I supported Caesar's Legion because that particular form of governance seemed logical in that particular context. Even the part about women not fighting. If I recall correctly, wasn't some of the basis for that particular decision based around the fact that as humans our women carry the babies and therefore losing a woman is potentially losing several people ie not only her but any children she might have in future? What I thought was the most "evil" faction was actually the NCR because it looked like its long term goals put humanity in the worst position of the 3. I would not support them. My third playthrough of NV I find myself back to supporting Mr. House even though I'd started the game intending to try out supporting the NCR.

 

Edit: I should say that I was dissapointed after I finished the game as a legion supporter and heard something along the lines of "despite being a good and moral man, the lone wanderer supported Caesar's legion". After listening to Caesar's reasoning over the course of multiple dialogues, I believed that what he was attempting to do was a good thing for humanity. That was certainly how it seemed it was from his perspective and that was how I approached it. It would've been nice if at the end it wasn't a condemnation of the choices I made as a player which I felt were wholly consistent with a "greater good" mentality.

 

Edit #2: I do however think it's important to note that if Caesar were to die and Lanius were to take over, the end result for humanity would be horrifying. He was in my opinion the perfect embodiment of all the negatives of the Legion with none of the overarching positive philosophy exhibited by Caesar. He was the perfect enforcer and right hand man to keep things in line and keep the machine in perfect tune for Caesar to direct, but absent a benevolent dictator that machine would quickly become a meaningless monstrosity. If Lanius was in charge then I would agree with the ending which tried to tell the player that they'd made a mistake by supporting the Legion, with dire long term consequences for humanity where they were stuck living lives as little more than glorified Tribals for thousands of years.

Edited September 16, 2012 by KenThomas

[KenThomas]

I think in general I am excited by the notion of reactivity in the world, probably something close to The Witcher, much as I disliked that game. To illustrate what I mean, take an example:

 

Say your PC is entering a city for the first time and is going to infiltrate the local thieves' guild (or equivalent) for some other faction. You meet your faction contact but are interrupted by a group of local thugs. These thugs just happen to be racist. If you're an elf, say, they will attack you and you will have to kill them. If you're a human, they'll let you go (or you can kill them). In this case, it would appear that the human got off easy, but as it happens, later on in the infiltration quest the thug leader will show up at an inopportune time, recognize you, and blow your cover (barring some serious slick talking). An elf character, though subject to hassle the human isn't, is saved a major headache in the long run.

 

That sort of thing is something I'd like to see!

 

I like the way you think. 3 posts by you in this thread, all very strong.

[Longknife]

I do like the idea of factions being consistent, like the legions in FNV being sexist because that is their phylosophy. it fit, I always found RPG's unrealistic when there is no sexism, racism, drug use...etc. All the bad things that exist in the world and has existed since the dawn of time, yet in these settings everyone works together just fine. I want to see these subjects explored in the game.

 

 

A thousand times this.

 

I'm often b****ing on the Bethesda forums about how New Vegas is a thousand times better than Skyrim, and sometimes I end up in discussions with Skyrim fans that have never played New Vegas. I might say I miss the tough decisions of New Vegas and in response hear "the civil war of Skyrim is a tough decision too!!"

 

No, no it's not. And it's for exactly that reason. New Vegas factions were consistent. House represented capitalism, NCR represented democracy, the Legion was a dictatorship and Yes Man offered anarchy, with a couple other minor factions representing certain ideals, more or less. I like how a side effect of the democracy was that, while everyone enjoyed their freedoms, their system as a whole was less effective because, let's face it, every idiot can vote. Meanwhile Caesar denied people their freedom, but for it, the roads were safer and his troops more loyal.

Skyrim's Civil war failed because the strengths and flaws of each literally mirrored each other. FFS sometimes they -literally- mirrored each other on the map. While the Stormcloaks kept Riften free from total corruption, the Imperials kept Markarth free of total corruption. While the Stormcloaks had a spoiled, ineffective leader in charge of the Pale, the Imperials had a spoiled, ineffective leader in charge of Falkreath. The whole thing completely trivialized your decisions because the devs LITERALLY designed the two to have most of the exact same flaws and perks, the only difference being WHICH city remained corrupt and which got fixed up. It was just a war of the mind (Imperials trying to unite with Skyrim to prep for the Thalmor) and the heart (Stormcloaks demanding their religious freedom); everything else felt like irrelevant fluff tossed in there in a desperate attempt to make the war grey, but it failed miserably.

 

More importantly, the factions just felt fake because of it. I mean you KNEW the Imperials would lead to a corrupt Riften not because that's part of their characteristics, but because the devs thought it made things "grey." The characteristics of the two armies didn't feel like they naturally fell into place and reflected their basic philosophies, but rather the devs specifically went through creating faults out of thin air for each side of the war. It was like "the Stormcloaks want religious freedom.....oh btw they're racist" or "the Legion believes a united empire is stronger.....oh btw they support necromancy." Like wtf? These aren't objective or relevant to the Civil war at all. It just looks like a pathetic failed attempt to make the war morally grey.

 

 

 

 

Having said that though, given that Obsidian wrote New Vegas, I don't think we need to worry about them being able to give characters natural character traits that actually match up with their personality. I don't think we have to worry about a Joshua Graham who randomly announces that he hates black people for no apparent reason whatsoever or the like in order to make him "grey."

[Nonek]

Reading my previous comment, it comes across as a trifle dickish, for which I apologise. It's not that I think the writing on Veronica in New Vegas was bad, it's just that I dislike that kind of character. Their flippancy and constant attempts to be liked grate on my nerves.

[Gazoinks]

Reading my previous comment, it comes across as a trifle dickish, for which I apologise. It's not that I think the writing on Veronica in New Vegas was bad, it's just that I dislike that kind of character. Their flippancy and constant attempts to be liked grate on my nerves.

I agree. I actually loved her character, but I'm still pretty tired of that whole archetype. Also the "tomboy who wants a dress in order to feel like a woman" is another thing that ties into that, which I'm also tired of.

[Longknife]

Reading my previous comment, it comes across as a trifle dickish, for which I apologise. It's not that I think the writing on Veronica in New Vegas was bad, it's just that I dislike that kind of character. Their flippancy and constant attempts to be liked grate on my nerves.

 

Yknow despite Felicia Day's star power, Veronica is one of the few cases where a German voice actor did it better for exactly that reason. Felicia Day's delivery did give the impression that Veronica was expecting a "Ba-dum-TSSSS" and a laugh track after each of her jokes, the German voice actress delivered the lines with more of a fun-loving persona and with dry humor, AKA not expecting or demanding laughter but just making the jokes because she wants to.

 

Raul's humor was best humor though. Who the hell knew Danny Trejo has such great comedic delivery?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Longknife

[Gazoinks]

Reading my previous comment, it comes across as a trifle dickish, for which I apologise. It's not that I think the writing on Veronica in New Vegas was bad, it's just that I dislike that kind of character. Their flippancy and constant attempts to be liked grate on my nerves.

 

Yknow despite Felicia Day's star power, Veronica is one of the few cases where a German voice actor did it better for exactly that reason. Felicia Day's delivery did give the impression that Veronica was expecting a "Ba-dum-TSSSS" and a laugh track after each of her jokes, the German voice actress delivered the lines with more of a fun-loving persona and with dry humor, AKA not expecting or demanding laughter but just making the jokes because she wants to.

 

Raul's humor was best humor though. Who the hell knew Danny Trejo has such great comedic delivery?

Raul was amazing. "Sure, boss. I'd be happy to prolong my captivity and psychological abuse to tighten some lug nuts for you." Gannon was great as well.

[The Sharmat]

One thing that isn't really breaking the mold for this developer so much as the industry as a whole that I'd like to see: subversion of the gameplay and story segregation trope. Remember in Planescape: Torment how respawning after a loss was actually justified in the plot and was a major feature of the storyline? How getting stronger as you progressed through the game and killed your enemies was explained in KOTOR 2? I want more of that.

[Delterius]

I believe some good molds to break, are the newest ones.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Delterius

[Longknife]

One thing that isn't really breaking the mold for this developer so much as the industry as a whole that I'd like to see: subversion of the gameplay and story segregation trope.

 

I'

 

Excellent point. Couldn't agree more.

[Delterius]

One thing that isn't really breaking the mold for this developer so much as the industry as a whole that I'd like to see: subversion of the gameplay and story segregation trope. Remember in Planescape: Torment how respawning after a loss was actually justified in the plot and was a major feature of the storyline? How getting stronger as you progressed through the game and killed your enemies was explained in KOTOR 2? I want more of that.

 

I'd say subversion if you consider design decisions that convenience gameplay with no regards to the story, therefore deliberately causing gameplay and story segregation while proud of it. Like that isn't a failure of video game story telling. Because, you know, gamers shouldn't be inconvenienced at all. Like shared party experience without a really good justification, or half of the genre's latest 'innovation'.

 

But in a ideal world, that'd just be design striving to get better.

 

One thing that isn't really breaking the mold for this developer so much as the industry as a whole that I'd like to see: subversion of the gameplay and story segregation trope.

 

I'

 

Excellent point. Couldn't agree more.

Oh. Is there a delete button? I can't find it.

 

Otherwise there's my eternal shame.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Delterius

[Longknife]

Oh. Is there a delete button? I can't find it.

 

Otherwise there's my eternal shame.

 

Glad I could help.

[Delterius]

Oh. Is there a delete button? I can't find it.

 

Otherwise there's my eternal shame.

 

Glad I could help.

 

The superior civilizations of the future will read that and reach the conclusion that the paltry forums of the Stone Age had issues of double posting. Or that this Delterius chap is stupid.

[The Sharmat]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that I'd be upset if they didn't justify it. I just thought it was clever when they did and would like to see a new spin on it.

[Delterius]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that I'd be upset if they didn't justify it. I just thought it was clever when they did and would like to see a new spin on it.

 

That's just me venting.

[catmorbid]

I would also love for the quest/choices/consequences bit to be pushed as far as humanly possible on this project. -- Also, it'd be great if warrior characters aren't just... the classic "smash everything well but have nothing else to do". Make them have some unique flavor in dialogues as well.

 

Basically, lots and lots of unique dialogue. EVERYWHERE!

 

Yes, definitely.

 

Thinking about warrior characters made me think about how to depict them, and moreover on how to introduce the typical rpg violence and violence as a theme; how to make the world react to violence. It made me think that violence should in fact be described as gruesomely as possible - not by visual or verbose descriptors - but by showing proper reactions to violence; make warriors mental wrecks on the verge of breaking apart due to the inhumanities they've performed, or psychopaths without conscience, who are incapable of any lasting relationships, or any kind of moral judgement. If among those morally deprived murderers and asylum patient candidates you meet even one remotely decent person, there would be instant respect for this person, without any special gimmicks involving any heroics or other crap.

 

It would be incredibly awesome if the player character's first combat encounter would end in someone screaming in horror at the atrocity committed by the character, i.e. taking someone's life. Make sure that murder and bloodshed isn't the everyday routine of every other peasent out there. Make life count more than just the random exp that pours down the sky

[Giantevilhead]

I would really like to see some societies and cultures within the world that are really innovative and experimental.

 

There could be a highly pragmatic meritocracy that puts logic and practical concern ahead of metaphysical ones where they have no problem using necromancy or "dark magic" to achieve goals that would benefit their entire nation. Maybe they siphon the life out of criminals and uses it to heal sick people or they turn highly educated and skilled people, who are willing, into undead so that they could continue to serve their society.

 

There could be a culture that's built upon social engineering principles found in B.F. Skinner's Walden Two or Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies. There could be a truly open society or a society where concepts like happiness and fulfillment are much more quantified and are planned out or regimented for populous.

 

There could be a society in which the standards of beauty, gender, and sex are different. A society in which there are less differences in how men and woman are raised and treated. Where instead of power and strength being associated with beauty/sexiness in men and submissiveness and vulnerability being associated with beauty/sexiness in women, standards of beauty/sexiness are similar for both genders.

[HangedMan]

There could be a highly pragmatic meritocracy that puts logic and practical concern ahead of metaphysical ones where they have no problem using necromancy or "dark magic" to achieve goals that would benefit their entire nation. Maybe they siphon the life out of criminals and uses it to heal sick people or they turn highly educated and skilled people, who are willing, into undead so that they could continue to serve their society.

I really like this idea. Especially the part about making the filthy blighting criminals worth something good.

[Gatt9]

Molds I'd like to see broken in CRPG's?

 

-Not every magic item has to be combat focused. Very few, if any, CRPG's have implemented compelling magic items that could be used outside of combat.

 

-Something else never really done in a CRPG is a puzzle-dungeon, or a challenge dungeon. A great example of what I mean is the old Fighting Fantasy book "Deathtrap Dungeon". Everything to date is pretty straightforward, items are made so that their use is obvious. A puzzle-dungeon you have to work to figure out, with a great reward at the end would be incredible.

 

-I still recall to this day an old Dungeon or Dragon magazine with a short module in it. The entire concept was "Teach the high level PC's to fear kobolds", the premise was that with good use of traps, and guerilla tactics, kobolds could seriously threaten really high level PC's. It's something that's never really been done in a CRPG, giving the Player critters he thinks are simple and then turning the tables on him.

 

That's what pops into my head.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Gatt9

[IEfan]

Some great ideas in this thread! Great minds think alike...

Cultural differences, in dress, speech and moral viewpoints. The decadent kilted profligates of the soft southern cities, a racial mish mash of half a dozen peoples, garishly adorned and of a driven cheerful disposition should stand in stark contrast to the conservative betrousered and drab northerners, who ride forth from the dark wald to trade their kine and furs on the borderlands.

I really love this stuff, personally.

 

I agree. If you think of it, elves are just pretty-featured

Edited September 17, 2012 by IEfan