On Including Things (and not)

[Alexjh]

This is not entirely a topic a topic so much as a monologue, so apologies in advance, but it's just in response to the latest wave of threads we've had.

 

Essentially it boils down to this: really, as long as it captures the spirit of the games it is the self proclaimed successor to, Obsidian should feel free to put in any mechanic, any trope, any monster type, any class or any whatever. My sole requirement is that whatever it is, it's done well, and given the great amount of enjoyment I've had from Obsidian games in the past I've no reason to think otherwise.

 

The are two real ends to this that have both cropped up: first the end where people say I don't want "trope x" in my game. This is neglecting a little that arguably Medieval fantasy is probably by far the most trope heavy genre to begin with, being that the entire thing basically stands precariously on the back of probably about five authors or so at most. While there is certainly a very strong arguement that we need some fresh blood in the game content wise, this is neglecting two things. Firstly if something became a trope or recurring concept it's because it's something that clicks with people. This isn't to say that we should shove every trope in wholesale just because, as clearly we shouldn't, which brings me vaguely to my second point, which if you go and say "I categorically don't want (say) Dragons" in the game (which out of interest I don't see anyone saying despite them being by far one of the most overused fantasy tropes of all) this is missing the point that you don't have to play any concept straight. In essense, by saying "no dragons" you aren't just preventing generic fire breathing giant sized boss battle #7, you are also preventing any analysis of that, any interesting new twists on that, any deconstruction of that.

 

The medieval fantasy genre does need to develop and stretch its wings a bit, I don't think anyone is denying that, but I don't think the way to do that is to fundementally cut itself free from all its old trappings in one go - there needs to be some self examining of what it has, regardless of how hamfisted certain things have been done by others in the past. It's not (necessarily) a question of "oh Dwarves are so boring, leave them out", but more a question of "why are dwarves boring? how can we make them interesting, nuanced and memorable?"

 

At the opposite end of the spectrum to that though are the comments along the line of "we should make thing Y more like real life". This is a slightly different question - and one without such a concrete response, and I'm mainly using this to summarise the views I've expressed in other threads that all appear to be running along the same themes, namely, are you wanting to change this thing to make it more like real life or are you wanting to change things to actually make them better? I think there are two mistakes in the former assumption - firstly that realistic = fun - it certainly can do, but it isn't by any means a surefire thing. Secondly, the assumption that your personal value of fun is the same as everyone elses. Here I'm personally inclined to stick to design conservatism and say "people backed an Infinity Engine successor, this was how those games did it, and thus presumably enjoyed the balance of those games, what is it about those mechanics that I feel the need to fix?" If the only answer is that it's not realistic enough, then the mechanics are quite possibly fine. Which isn't to say that you might not want to insert additional optional mechanics to accomodate those people who do want a different experience, or that all IE mechanics are somehow sacred (they aren't) but realism isn't an end unto itself in a creative medium unless that's the kind of experience you are trying to go for. I'm sure for instance there are people in this world who would love the opportunity to fill out beaurocratic Gnomish tax return forms, but I hope we can agree that unfortunatly those wishes will have to go unfullfilled for now for the good of the rest of us.

 

So in conclusion, while I think P:E will certainly have many things about it which are brilliantly original concepts, ingenious mechanics and most importantly just be full of new things which make it fun game, I think it's a mistake for some people to want to be so offhanded in wanting to cut ties from the IE games that PE is effectively a successor and homage to. Sure cut them where needed, and don't copy "word for word" but don't neglect the lessons learnt from them either, or assume just because an idea isn't original it can't be made interesting or explored in new ways.

 

Again apologies for the essay, hope it isn't too tedious!