Don't make the game too human-centric, town-centric and faction-centric. Keep it balanced.

[Infinitron]

RPGs have changed in many ways over the years. One of those changes has been a gradual but noticeable shift, from the classic experience of wilderness exploration, monster slaying and dungeon delving, towards increasingly "human-centric" plots, often involving politics and factions, and taking place mainly in towns.

 

For a good recent example of this, compare Witcher 1 with Witcher 2. Both decent games, but i feel that Witcher 2, with its intense political focus, lost something of the original game's "rural mystique" that made it really special.

 

I suspect that one of the reasons for this shift has been the rise of consoles, combined with the shift towards third person perspectives. It's easier to create smaller, more detailed areas (ie, towns) with the console's limited memory, and the third person perspective tends to fit with a more "cinematic" sort of plot, with lots of dialogue and intrigue.

 

Whatever the case, I hope Obsidian can bring back the balance between oldschool adventuring and "newschool" person-centric storytelling.

[Sarog]

Meh. Subjectivity. I think politics and factional storytelling are vastly more interesting than the alternative, and my aesthetic preference is inclined towards structures, castles, walled cities and things that are architecturally attractive rather than wilderness scenes. I reject the idea that this a console cop out, because your conclusion there doesn't logically follow the premise and I see no reason to relate the two other than associative bias.

 

This is the sort of thing where you need to confront the idea that is one's preference is absolutely subjective. Your preference is your preference, which is not valid in any larger objective sense. As is mine. Obviously I will object to your pretentious assertions that your preference be placed ahead of my preference, unless you can back it up with more than "I like this better".

Edited October 4, 2012 by Sarog

[Infinitron]

Meh. Subjectivity. I think politics and factional storytelling are vastly more interesting than the alternative, and my aesthetic preference is inclined towards structures, castles, walled cities and things that are architecturally attractive rather than wilderness scenes. I reject the idea that this a console cop out, because your conclusion there doesn't logically follow the premise and I see no reason to relate the two other than associative bias.

 

This is the sort of thing where you need to confront the idea that is one's preference is absolutely subjective. Your preference is your preference, which is not valid in any larger objective sense. As is mine. Obviously I will object to your pretentious assertions that your preference be placed ahead of my preference, unless you can back it up with more than "I like this better".

 

Touchy.

 

Again, note that I'm not advocating that those elements you like be removed entirely from the game. Only that they not be the entire focus of it.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Infinitron

[Shadenuat]

Nothing degrades my interest as fast as being locked in a set of stone boxes in something supposed to be "adventuring" "fantasy" game for 20 hours. The reason why I yawned like crazy playing Mysteries of the Westgate and dropped the game.

 

And can we avoid Guards vs Thieves questline just. this. one. time. ?

Edited October 4, 2012 by Shadenuat

[evdk]

RPGs have changed in many ways over the years. One of those changes has been a gradual but noticeable shift, from the classic experience of wilderness exploration, monster slaying and dungeon delving, towards increasingly "human-centric" plots, often involving politics and factions, and taking place mainly in towns.

 

For a good recent example of this, compare Witcher 1 with Witcher 2. Both decent games, but i feel that Witcher 2, with its intense political focus, lost something of the original game's "rural mystique" that made it really special.

 

I suspect that one of the reasons for this shift has been the rise of consoles, combined with the shift towards third person perspectives. It's easier to create smaller, more detailed areas (ie, towns) with the console's limited memory, and the third person perspective tends to fit with a more "cinematic" sort of plot, with lots of dialogue and intrigue.

 

Whatever the case, I hope Obsidian can bring back the balance between oldschool adventuring and "newschool" person-centric storytelling.

 

So more BG1 than BG2?

[Sarog]

Meh. Subjectivity. I think politics and factional storytelling are vastly more interesting than the alternative, and my aesthetic preference is inclined towards structures, castles, walled cities and things that are architecturally attractive rather than wilderness scenes. I reject the idea that this a console cop out, because your conclusion there doesn't logically follow the premise and I see no reason to relate the two other than associative bias.

 

This is the sort of thing where you need to confront the idea that is one's preference is absolutely subjective. Your preference is your preference, which is not valid in any larger objective sense. As is mine. Obviously I will object to your pretentious assertions that your preference be placed ahead of my preference, unless you can back it up with more than "I like this better".

 

Touchy.

 

Again, note that I'm not advocating that those elements you like be removed entirely from the game. Only that they not be the entire focus of it.

 

Yeah sure. That's what you would like. Understand that I'm not bashing your preferences or anything. Just consider the idea that your preferences aren't right, correct, or binding for anyone else just because they are to you. Also understand that taking one thing you don't like, this human/urban emphasis, and arbitrarily grouping it with another thing you don't like, consoles, is fallacious, and doesn't change your opinion from subjective preference into objective truth.

 

You've basically started a thread saying "I like oranges, please cater less to apples and more to oranges". There's really very little for me to say in response other than "ok, you like oranges, but that doesn't mean oranges are as important as you want them to be".

Edited October 4, 2012 by Sarog

[Infinitron]

RPGs have changed in many ways over the years. One of those changes has been a gradual but noticeable shift, from the classic experience of wilderness exploration, monster slaying and dungeon delving, towards increasingly "human-centric" plots, often involving politics and factions, and taking place mainly in towns.

 

For a good recent example of this, compare Witcher 1 with Witcher 2. Both decent games, but i feel that Witcher 2, with its intense political focus, lost something of the original game's "rural mystique" that made it really special.

 

I suspect that one of the reasons for this shift has been the rise of consoles, combined with the shift towards third person perspectives. It's easier to create smaller, more detailed areas (ie, towns) with the console's limited memory, and the third person perspective tends to fit with a more "cinematic" sort of plot, with lots of dialogue and intrigue.

 

Whatever the case, I hope Obsidian can bring back the balance between oldschool adventuring and "newschool" person-centric storytelling.

 

So more BG1 than BG2?

 

Yes and no. I did like BG1's larger amount of wilderness exploration, but at the same time, I don't think BG2 was the same kind of faction-centric, dialogue-centric game as some of today's RPGs.

 

Yes, you spent a large percentage of the game in Athkatla, but the city was more like a huge collection of sidequests stuffed together than a coherent setting with well-defined politics and personalities.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Infinitron

[Infinitron]

arbitrarily grouping it with another thing you don't like, consoles, is fallacious

 

Well, I did qualify that statement with "I suspect". Yes, I might be wrong about that. I'm not a game developer.

[Shadenuat]

Just consider the idea that your preferences aren't right, correct, or binding for anyone else just because they are to you. Also understand that taking one thing you don't like, this human/urban emphasis, and arbitrarily grouping it with another thing you don't like, consoles, is fallacious, and doesn't change your opinion from subjective preference into objective truth.

 

That was probably one of the worst internet preaching I've read for some time. And you've added apples and oranges to it. That's... just... cute

[C2B]

You've basically started a thread saying "I like oranges, please cater less to apples and more to oranges". There's really very little for me to say in response other than "ok, you like oranges, but that doesn't mean oranges are as important as you want them to be".

 

That comparison,.... doesn't really make sense?

 

I think he said more *Please carter equally to apples and oranges*

 

Which I support

Edited October 4, 2012 by C2B

[Sarog]

You've basically started a thread saying "I like oranges, please cater less to apples and more to oranges". There's really very little for me to say in response other than "ok, you like oranges, but that doesn't mean oranges are as important as you want them to be".

 

That comparison,.... doesn't really make sense?

 

I think he said more *Please carter equally to apples and oranges*

 

By first introducing the false dilemma that suggests that they are already unequal, requesting a lessening of a perceived emphasis on urban adventure and human-related stories that is fallaciously labeled as "newschool". We're talking about a non-existent dilemma here.

 

BG2 was definitely not "new school", and was primarily focused on a very expansive city scape filled with human-centric plots and factions.

 

Fallout NV and Skyrim both featured very expansive wilderness adventure that at the very least equaled the urban-human emphasis in those games, if not overshadowed them.

 

Is this dilemma of the old school wilderness crawl being overthrown by newschool townsy actually present? If you juxtapose Icewind Dale to Dragon Age 2, sure, but isolated examples don't make a trend.

 

This thread is a random pairing of 1) aesthetic preference, 2) pointing the finger at consoles for things that one dislikes, and 3) the assertion of a perceived trend that isn't necessarily true. Each of those points on its own has merit to be discussed but I'm not sure that fusing them into a single ManBearBig antagonist creates a legitimate dilemma.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Sarog

[C2B]

What?

 

You're paying waaaaaay too much attention to the comparison between new school and old-school than his actual point. He even adresses it in the last sentence. It's just his way of explaining what he means, even if it's disagreeable.

 

 

Whatever the case, I hope Obsidian can bring back the balance between oldschool adventuring and "newschool" person-centric storytelling.

Edited October 4, 2012 by C2B

[Sarog]

What?

 

You're paying waaaaaay too much attention to the comparison between new school and old-school than his actual point. He even adresses it in the last sentence. It's just his way of explaining what he means, even if it's disagreeable.

 

 

Whatever the case, I hope Obsidian can bring back the balance between oldschool adventuring and "newschool" person-centric storytelling.

 

Fair enough. So long as we don't go off on tangents that assume relationships where none exist and take for granted problematic trends that aren't really in evidence.

[GhostofAnakin]

I can agree with the OP's call for balance.

 

As for the subject of political intrigue, I like them in games. However, I like the way the Witcher 2 handled the various factions and motivations, not the way DA2 handled it.

[Infinitron]

BG2 was definitely not "new school", and was primarily focused on a very expansive city scape filled with human-centric plots and factions.

 

That's not the kind of human-centrism I'm referring to. When I say "human-centric", I mean humans as a civilization, as political animals - not humans as mere individuals that you meet during your adventures.

 

BG2 (and D&D games in general) tended to have a very simplified view of such things. Note that you never actually got to meet the rulers of Amn or the leaders of the Cowled Wizards in BG2.

 

Fallout NV and Skyrim both featured very expansive wilderness adventure that at the very least equaled the urban-human emphasis in those games, if not overshadowed them.

 

Correct, Bethesda-style games are the big exception to the trend I pointed out. For all their faults, they still get it, which is why I have a grudging respect for them.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Infinitron

[Karranthain]

Balance in All Things.

[Sarog]

BG2 was definitely not "new school", and was primarily focused on a very expansive city scape filled with human-centric plots and factions.

 

That's not the kind of human-centrism I'm referring to. When I say "human-centric", I mean humans as a civilization, as political animals - not humans as individuals that you meet along the way and help.

 

BG2 (and D&D games in general) tended to have a very simplified view of such things. You'll notice that you never actually got to meet the rulers of Amn or the leaders of the Cowled Wizards in BG2.

 

I confess I'm not entirely sure of how you define it this human-centric focus. A story can be factional and political without involving the people at the top of the pyramid. Baldur's Gate 2 included a great deal of factional emphasis, both inside towns and out. Rival thieves guilds. Rival druid circles. A paladin order and an anti-paladin offshoot of that order. The Roenall family's covetous grasp extending towards d'Arnise keep. Three prominent rival churches in competition with each other, and a cult trying to steal their worshipers. The outbreak of the war between the drow and the surface elves. All of these things are essentially about people struggling over ideology or competing for power. I'm not sure how this is less political or human-centric than the Witcher 2, except that the Witcher focuses on fewer, bigger political conflicts rather than a lot of smaller ones.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Sarog

[Infinitron]

I'm not sure how this is less political or human-centric than the Witcher 2, except that the Witcher focuses on fewer, bigger political conflicts rather than a lot of smaller ones.

 

I think you've answered your own question here.

 

The entire plot of Witcher 2 was predicated on a

convoluted Nilfgaardian scheme to destabilize the Northern Kingdoms.

Very political.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 may have had some low level factional stuff you could meddle with, but the basis of the main plot was the very personal obsession of one Jon Irenicus. Even the "Thieves vs Vampires faction war" aspect was half-hearted and faded out surprisingly quickly as the player went on to Brynnlaw and the Underdark to do more adventurey things.

 

In short, Baldur's Gate 2 is more-or-less the kind of reasonably balanced game I'm interested in, although I would prefer if it also had more wilderness areas.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Infinitron

[Sarog]

To me, that feels like an arbitrary distinction though. Stories about people, factions, and ideology are very important to roleplaying, and I don't think that the level to which the game's plots and subplots are interrelated affect anything other than narrative coherency.

 

The Witcher 1 was every inch as political as the Witcher 2, but the focus on the escalating conflict between the Order and Scoia'tael didn't impede any of the rural/wilderness adventure that you feel is fading away, and monster slaying was of course a tremendous focus, as you played a monster hunter. Nor did the Witcher 2's detailed political plot take anything away from the time I spent mucking around in the forest, looking for endrega teeth, plotting how to kill the kayran, banishing ghosts and breaking curses.

 

So I do rather feel like the lines and boundaries you are drawing here are a touch arbitrary, and don't really affect the meat and potatoes of any of the titles we've discussed.

[GhostofAnakin]

I'm not sure how this is less political or human-centric than the Witcher 2, except that the Witcher focuses on fewer, bigger political conflicts rather than a lot of smaller ones.

 

I think you've answered your own question here.

 

The entire plot of Witcher 2 was predicated on a

convoluted Nilfgaardian scheme to destabilize the Northern Kingdoms.

Very political.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 may have had some low level factional stuff you could meddle with, but the basis of the entire plot was the very personal obsession of one Jon Irenicus. Even the "Thieves vs Vampires faction war" aspect was half-hearted and faded out surprisingly quickly as the player went on to Brynnlaw and the Underdark to do more adventurey things.

 

Couldn't you argue that the plot of the Witcher 2 was predicated on Geralt's journey to get his memory back? That was his motivation from the get go. Heck, there were even opportunities to say to hell with politics, I just want to find Triss and get on with my search for Yennifer. The political stuff plays a huge role in the things Geralt ends up doing along the way, but his main motivation for his adventure (for lack of a better word) is the Wild Hunt and trying to regain his memory.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

By rural mystique do you mean horrible sexism?

 

I understand that a lot of people here are fans but I'd rather anything from The Witcher didn't come near Project Eternity at all.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Moonlight Butterfly

[Karranthain]

While I enjoy plots full of political intrue greatly, I, too, remember fondly the classic : a band of adventurers exploring ancient forests, or delving into long-forgotten dungeons. Either can become monotonous, so, as the OP suggested, Obsidian should try to find balance.

[evdk]

By rural mystique do you mean horrible sexism?

 

I understand that a lot of people here are fans but I'd rather anything from The Witcher didn't come near Project Eternity at all.

What horrible sexism outside of the stupid cards?

[Moonlight Butterfly]

By rural mystique do you mean horrible sexism?

 

I understand that a lot of people here are fans but I'd rather anything from The Witcher didn't come near Project Eternity at all.

What horrible sexism outside of the stupid cards?

 

Oh maybe the 'do stuff, get sex' atmosphere of the whole thing. Some of the female characters did a complete 180 in personality just to offer a roll in the hay, it was awful. Women aren't sex vending machines.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Moonlight Butterfly

[evdk]

 

Oh maybe the 'do stuff, get sex' atmosphere of the whole thing. Some of the female characters did a complete 180 in personality just to offer a roll in the hay, it was awful. Women aren't sex vending machines.

 

Truth be told I don't remember that much (it's been quite long since I last replayed Twitcher 1) but in any case I believe what Infinitron meant by rural mystique had nothing to do with sexual politics of Temeria and everything to do with the ration of politics vs exploration in game storyline.