I figured it out... Why RPGs seem to be going down hill.

[Luridis]

 

 

I'll have to address the rest later. But on number 5, you're kind of making my point for me. To see why, I'll have to go all the way back to the beginning statement.

Fair enough.  Your perspective has actually improved my opinion of BGS and Skyrim.  I personally would like them to have a more sophisticated (and moddable) combat system, but I actually like what they're doing with in the high-level sense that they're reifying abstract systems and exposing them as actual gameplay.  (But I wouldn't want that to become widespread in RPGs, either.)

 

Have you ever tried Duke Patrick's combat mods (in either Oblivion or Skyrim)?  He's an SCA-er that tries to apply principles of real-life combat in the games.  His mods make both games more extreme in terms of both player skill and RPG stats.  So for example blocking becomes much more important for survival, with the timing entirely based on player skill but with the effectiveness heavily mitigated by character skill.   

 

Also, as an aside, both he and Arwen (of Realism Tweaks fame for the Fallout games) have complained about how difficult it is to port their mods to Skyrim because of the lack of stats.   Arwen eventually gave up, and DP decided to fake hidden attributes in order to implement his mechanics.  

 

 

Like I mentioned before... I don't expect anyone to agree. I just see the whole thing from a different perspective, that being one of a person who sees at it's heart, what are essentially just two different formulas for damage scaling.

(Attacks_Per_Time - RNG_Misses) * (Weapon_Damage + Class_Bonuses) * (1.0 - Target_DR/100) = Damage_Received

vs

On_Player_Attack_Success Damage_Received = (Weapon_Damage * (Weapon_Skill_Bonus + Perk_Adjust)) - Target_DR/100

Or whatever the pseudocode would be, I'm a bit tired ATM so the math may not even be correct. I don't know the exact details of how their code generates the values, but that's the sense of it.

 

That said, I understand that Qistina and 300metrictonnes disagree completely and I understand why they feel that way. Completely isolating the player's direct action from any involvement in the outcome makes a character feel more separate from you. There is also a charm to that style of play that even I miss dearly. Let's just say I am glad Obsidian wasn't considering action oriented game mechanics for PoE, we have plenty of action RPGs to choose from already. Where I wholeheartedly disagree with those two is that the RNG hit mechanic is a defining element of the genre.

 

EDIT: Damn I hate trying to reply through fatigue... I sound like basket case.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Luridis

[Luridis]

Sorry, just couldn't idly stand around...

 

5: You're just dead wrong here. Depending on range, shooting a person in the eye is remarkably easy, especially with something like a crossbow. Hence the need for rules like, "Always treat a firearm as if it is loaded." Because it is that easy to fatally wound someone, archery dominated warfare for a long part of our history because it is very effective.

Oooops. Every sharpshooter in the world just winced painfully. From everything more than 10 meters shoot a person in the eye is a chance taking depending on many factors even from a pistol, let alone crossbow and especially bow. Skill matters a lot. And, yes, archery never dominated warfare before firearms popped up. Partly because of teaching somewhat skilled archer took an awfully lot of time, and they died easily if an enemy managed to get in melee, which cavalry was often able to accomplish. That's irrelevant to RPGs, of course, but... I'm hurt.

 

Regarding Skyrim, I don't think comparing its role system to something D&D-like is viable. They're just different, not "worse" or "better". Learning to do things by doing them makes perfect sense, in Skyrim it's just taken beyond last line of absurd by some abstract value of "level" tied to it and absence of stats and restrictions in general. Bethesda understood KISS principle in a wrong way, yeah. Very wrong way.

 

[here goes some nasty comment about raising conversation skills in D&D 3.5 with xp earned by endless killing.]

"I'm learning how to be courteous with that person by butchering him/her! No person - no need to be courteous, and I always know where to put extra belongings, yay!" I know that happens only with a lousy DM, but ruleset allows that and in videogame there's just no DM, so what you're going to do?

 

I'm agree with the point that mixing player's skills with character's skills to succeed in some action is stupid, though. Viable gameplay wise, but stupid in general.

 

I hope you'll forgive me a little lecturing on OP in the end (it was intended to be imho, but... well, it happens. Sorry. ).

Every argument about what an RPG should be and what not loses its scope pretty quickly because of lack of definitions. Genre originated in PnP gaming was never decently defined for computer gaming.

"Role-Playing Game? I can roleplay in Call of Duty, you know. So it's gotta be an RPG, by genre name. What now?" Bad thing is, there's no way to deny such statement completely. It has some truth in it, strictly speaking. Some. Old-school RPG fans take for basis a complex system, consisting from ruleset that makes character feel alive, world that gives him a place to live and deep book-like narrative tying those two together, but that's not obvious for newcomer or casual bystander used to simplicity. Matter of tastes in the end. Big videogame developers trying to appeal to both sides and thus releasing freaks of a games with no sense for a dime inside. It's not their fault, it's their job, sadly.

That said, RPGs are not going downhill. They've always been a niche sport, and with computer gaming developing they came out of their niche and was deformed by big ugly world.

 

tl;dr Skyrim is s***ty, but somewhat fun game. I hope that Bethesda will remove the former and increase the latter, but that's never going to happen. Cheers :D

 

 

Shooting in the eye... was wrong choice of words when I should have just said head. And the distances I had in my mind were no where near 10m, more like 3.0 - 4.5m.

 

The point isn't about distance or weapon... The point is that causing catastrophic damage to the human body at relatively close range with just about anything is relatively easy in the absence of defensive skills or armor because hit points are a progression mechanic and not a very real representation of human frailty. The human heart has one hit point and be it a marathon runner or couch potato, a butcher knife there is likely to be fatal to both people. I just didn't write out all of what was going through my head.

 

Shoot a person with a bow in the face at 3' they're likely to die, or at least off the battlefield. While the same thing can happen in an RPG to a level XX badboy wearing impervious armor of the ancient gods and we're talking about a tickle. That was the point of the whole statement, player controlled aiming does not trivialize the stat based defenses in action RPGs. Some of the over-generalizations I saw were trying to say just that, because you aim in skyrim, you've just made stats meaningless and that is simply not true.

 

I'm tired and a feeling seedy, so I'll have to answer the other later.

[Humanoid]

Beholders are people too!

[Yellow Rabbit]

Shooting in the eye... was wrong choice of words when I should have just said head. And the distances I had in my mind were no where near 10m, more like 3.0 - 4.5m.

 

The point isn't about distance or weapon... The point is that causing catastrophic damage to the human body at relatively close range with just about anything is relatively easy in the absence of defensive skills or armor because hit points are a progression mechanic and not a very real representation of human frailty. The human heart has one hit point and be it a marathon runner or couch potato, a butcher knife there is likely to be fatal to both people. I just didn't write out all of what was going through my head.

 

Shoot a person with a bow in the face at 3' they're likely to die, or at least off the battlefield. While the same thing can happen in an RPG to a level XX badboy wearing impervious armor of the ancient gods and we're talking about a tickle. That was the point of the whole statement, player controlled aiming does not trivialize the stat based defenses in action RPGs. Some of the over-generalizations I saw were trying to say just that, because you aim in skyrim, you've just made stats meaningless and that is simply not true.

 

I'm tired and a feeling seedy, so I'll have to answer the other later.

Looks like I missed your original point then. Sorry.

 

The way I see it... No way it's going to be short. Darn. Okay, I'll advocate "trivializing" point a little.

Let's say hitpoint bar is an abstraction. It actually is. In games with no direct player input (only indirect via commanding character what to do) the whole combat matter is fairly abstracted as well. "He took 3 hit points by the blow! Grazed enemy's arm, I guess." Justifying insta-kills and slight wounds becomes pure imagination matter.

Tendency in aRPGs to simulate real life instead of using traditional abstractions would be a good thing, if authors would take this simulation far enough. But they make some things simulated while the others stay abstracted, and that tends to make game mechanics nonsensical mess. Player aims - he chose to hit the leg - depending on his skill and enemy's armor hit in the leg might insta-kill or just take a few hitpoints of the same exact enemy. Such inconsistency between simulation and abstraction is what hits the eye from far more than 10 meters and not even that of a Beholder. I'm not sure whether it may be called "trivializing", though.

 

Btw, I've seen a good bypass of this problem once. In FNV. With low guns skill there aim was deviating wildly, making it very difficult for player to hit from afar, while upping this skill made aim steadier. Both simulation and sense are in place *nod-nod*

Edited December 19, 2014 by Yellow Rabbit

[Luridis]

Well what I think it boils down to is that I consider games like Skyrim and Diablo to be RPGs because they still have an elaborate stat system that scales the character's power allowing them to progress. But, there are some action adventures and FPS adventure games that have started calling themselves RPGs simply because they introduce a class mechanic. And, I don't think they qualify because they don't have any sort of stat progression. I mean, Team Fortress has classes and still isn't an RPG.

 

Obviously some people draw the RPG line closer in than that and avoid action mechanics. But, that's what their opinion of an RPG is, and they're entitled to it. And, I even understand why they feel that way. There's just not enough games being made with the more traditional mechanics these days.

 

A mechanic I personally don't much care for is real-time-with-pause. I understand the developers are trying to bridge the gap between turn based play and real time play. But, I see it as giving up the best of both worlds for a mediocre compromise. I like both real time and turn based systems, have seen both done very well and mixing them always diminishes both. So... Yea, I know what it's like to feel strongly about a particular mechanic, just like 500metrictonnes and Qistina.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Luridis

[Luridis]

Edit: I think there's a bug somewhere in the post editor. Every once in a while when I edit a post I end up with a double post, the original and my recent edit being in different posts.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Luridis

[500MetricTonnes]

The thing about ranged combat in Skyrim is that, in order to do damage, you still have to hit the target. And that is entirely contingent on the player's ability to aim. I know several people who are absolutely rubbish with first-person shooting mechanics - either they find the first-person perspective disorienting, or they simply lack the reflexes and coordination necessary to hit targets - and for those people, their character will always be terrible at archery in Skyrim, even if the Archery skill is maxed out.

 

And even if your damage output does scale with your skill level, all but a handful of enemies scale with your level anyway, making your progress ultimately meaningless.

 

Again, the more you "actionise" RPGs, they become more about "you", the player, than the role you're assuming. And the role is central to an RPG. Bethesda doesn't really understand this, and their games are perfect examples of cargo cult design - including features and gameplay mechanics without understanding the purpose of said mechanics. If you want to talk about "RPGs going downhill," then look no further than Fallout 3. The first two Fallout games are some of the best RPGs ever made, and then the franchise got handed to a developer who made a complete hash of it.

[Luridis]

The thing about ranged combat in Skyrim is that, in order to do damage, you still have to hit the target. And that is entirely contingent on the player's ability to aim. I know several people who are absolutely rubbish with first-person shooting mechanics - either they find the first-person perspective disorienting, or they simply lack the reflexes and coordination necessary to hit targets - and for those people, their character will always be terrible at archery in Skyrim, even if the Archery skill is maxed out.

 

And even if your damage output does scale with your skill level, all but a handful of enemies scale with your level anyway, making your progress ultimately meaningless.

 

Again, the more you "actionise" RPGs, they become more about "you", the player, than the role you're assuming. And the role is central to an RPG. Bethesda doesn't really understand this, and their games are perfect examples of cargo cult design - including features and gameplay mechanics without understanding the purpose of said mechanics. If you want to talk about "RPGs going downhill," then look no further than Fallout 3. The first two Fallout games are some of the best RPGs ever made, and then the franchise got handed to a developer who made a complete hash of it.

 

Yea well, the previous argument against Skyrim's lack of to-hit mechanics was that it made hits too easy. Now, they're too hard. I would say the best option in either case, if the mechanic is undesired, is that one should simply not play that game.

 

That said, I don't think to-hit mechanics, as implemented in a system like THAC0, is a required element of something that is to be called an RPG.

 

You say the first two fallout games are some of the best RPGs ever made. I can't really know because I've not played them. I'm not big on apocalypse stuff, even if science/tech setting for an RPG wouldn't bother me. I'm really excited about games based on Numenera though, I see few games in what I'd call the "post-populace" setting.

[redneckdevil]

Flame me if u must but i thought Morrowind was the "best they could do" as far as combining character and player skills together. It wasnt perfect but it had that "player is the director and the character is the actor" feel to it. The player would direct the actions but how well those actions played out was up to the character.

 

Plus the lore, atmosphere, and culture oozing out of every thing u seen and interacted with. The main story i loved as well with characters of Vivec and Dagoth Ur and the history behind them. Sigh i coukd go on but i understand its not everyones cup of tea.

Edited December 19, 2014 by redneckdevil

[licketysplit]

Nothing is as good as it once was: the thread.

[Mamoulian War]

Nothing is as good as it once was: the thread.

 

That's blatant lies.

 

My grandmom still cooks as fantastic as 25 years ago...

[Luridis]

Nothing is as good as it once was: the thread.

 

Some things are actually better: Graphics are, system stability is... inputs not freezing, controller/joystick compatibility and probably the most needed of all: we don't deal with sound card issues in PC games anymore.

[ktchong]

I've been playing PC RPG since Ultima IV: The Quest of Avatar in 1984 or 1985.   Since then I've played and completed dozens of RPG, and played close to a hundred RPG (if not more.)  So I think I have more experience in playing PC RPG than most amy of you guys.

 

RPG has NOT been "going downhill;" (btw, "downhill" is one word.)  IMO, RPG has been getting better in the past ten years or so.  Not just in terms of product quality, stability, presentations, mechanics and execution, but also in terms of storytelling, characterization and contents. In a lot of cases, an average-rating RPG today is better than the highly-rated RPG from the 1980s and 1990s, (which means today's standard is much higher than before.)

Edited December 20, 2014 by ktchong

[Luridis]

I've been playing PC RPG since Ultima IV: The Quest of Avatar in 1984 or 1985.   Since then I've played and completed dozens of RPG, and played close to a hundred RPG (if not more.)  So I think I have more experience in playing PC RPG than most amy of you guys.

 

RPG has NOT been "going downhill;" (btw, "downhill" is one word.)  IMO, RPG has been getting better in the past ten years or so.  Not just in terms of product quality, stability, presentations, mechanics and execution, but also in terms of storytelling, characterization and contents. In a lot of cases, an average-rating RPG today is better than the highly-rated RPG from the 1980s and 1990s, (which means today's standard is much higher than before.)

 

Actually, I believe "downhill" is an English Compound, one that I simply did not remove the space in. In truth, I don't even remember why because forums are, after all, a largely informal medium for communication. I mean, nobody wants to read l33tsp34k, sentenceswithoutspacedwords or a post that goes on at great length about a myriad of topics from world war 2 to the state of the new york city subway without capitalized titles or any punctuation at all in hundreds of words without end but... Nitpicking on what you did does make you look like a bit like Piccolo Mouso, but that's just IMO.

 

Since you're operating on the premise that date of release on the first CRPG you played is some sort of measure of validity weight of your opinion then I'll tell you my first RPG was a game called Telengard and leave it at that. Assuming of course that Zork doesn't count because it wasn't graphical. Now, snarf it!

 

Edited December 20, 2014 by Luridis

[ProbablyConfused]

Flame me if u must but i thought Morrowind was the "best they could do" as far as combining character and player skills together. It wasnt perfect but it had that "player is the director and the character is the actor" feel to it. The player would direct the actions but how well those actions played out was up to the character.

 

Plus the lore, atmosphere, and culture oozing out of every thing u seen and interacted with. The main story i loved as well with characters of Vivec and Dagoth Ur and the history behind them. Sigh i coukd go on but i understand its not everyones cup of tea.

 

Completely agree. I don't think there is any game I've put more hours into then Morrowind. Skyrim included. 

[Yellow Rabbit]

I've been playing PC RPG since Ultima IV: The Quest of Avatar in 1984 or 1985.   Since then I've played and completed dozens of RPG, and played close to a hundred RPG (if not more.)  So I think I have more experience in playing PC RPG than most amy of you guys.

 

RPG has NOT been "going downhill;" (btw, "downhill" is one word.)  IMO, RPG has been getting better in the past ten years or so.  Not just in terms of product quality, stability, presentations, mechanics and execution, but also in terms of storytelling, characterization and contents. In a lot of cases, an average-rating RPG today is better than the highly-rated RPG from the 1980s and 1990s, (which means today's standard is much higher than before.)

Wow. Troll THAT fat surely could use some diet.

 

Btw, here. One decidedly old interview with Laidlow about DA:Inquisition. "DA:I was inspired in a lot of ways by Planescape:Torment". Reaction of absolutely 100% people in comments is most amusing thing about it - "How dare you even pronounce that name, jerk!"

Games have become whole lot better in terms of storytelling recently, uh-huh.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Yellow Rabbit

[500MetricTonnes]

 

I've been playing PC RPG since Ultima IV: The Quest of Avatar in 1984 or 1985.   Since then I've played and completed dozens of RPG, and played close to a hundred RPG (if not more.)  So I think I have more experience in playing PC RPG than most amy of you guys.

 

RPG has NOT been "going downhill;" (btw, "downhill" is one word.)  IMO, RPG has been getting better in the past ten years or so.  Not just in terms of product quality, stability, presentations, mechanics and execution, but also in terms of storytelling, characterization and contents. In a lot of cases, an average-rating RPG today is better than the highly-rated RPG from the 1980s and 1990s, (which means today's standard is much higher than before.)

Wow. Troll THAT fat surely could use some diet.

 

Btw, here. One decidedly old interview with Laidlow about DA:Inquisition. "DA:I was inspired in a lot of ways by Planescape:Torment". Reaction of absolutely 100% people in comments is most amusing thing about it - "How dare you even pronounce that name, jerk!"

Games have become whole lot better in terms of storytelling recently, uh-huh.

 

 

What? What sense does that make? DA:I is your typical "chosen one saves the world" story that gleefully embraces every RPG cliche known to man. PS:T is a much more personal, character-focussed story that works to subvert many of those same cliches. PS:T is heavily centered around dialogue, while DA:I is much more action-oriented. I get the feeling he's just name-dropping a well-regarded RPG to gave DA:I more credibility.

 

And it's not that games have gotten better in terms of storytelling, it's that they've become more "cinematic," with gobs of time and money spent on Hollywood-level voice acting and production values. My theory is that the game industry had long had an inferiority complex, with the mainstream media deriding video games as an inferior form of artistic expression compared to books, movies, and TV shows. When technology advanced to the point where games could deliver a true "cinematic experience," many developers felt that this was a chance to prove that "games ARE art, damn it!" and so they immediately set about trying to turn games into movies, reducing the player to a passive recipient of the story and gameplay to mere filler...something to take up time between cutscenes.

 

A game like Mass Effect 3 is the logical endpoint of this design philosophy. With the exception of FFXIII, I don't think I've ever played a game that's more ashamed of being a video game than this. From beginning to end, it so desperately wants to be a Hollywood blockbuster, with sweeping camera angles, sad piano music, and oh-so-tragic moments where characters nobly sacrifice themselves for the cause! And all the while I kept thinking, "Why not just have the player pick Shepard's personality at the beginning and show the player nothing but cutscenes for the rest of the game?

 

Compare to this to the original Fallout. If I give the Vault Dweller an Intelligence stat of 1, he'll be unable to communicate in anything but oohas, ahhs, grunts, and growls:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuBjeLiWhek

 

Such a character won't be able to get most of the quests, because everyone will dismiss him as an idiot. Yet the game can still be completed this way. On the other hand, a character with the right stats can finish the game without firing a single shot. Story and gameplay are integrated, so that one character might have a completely different path through the story than another.

[Mamoulian War]

Man I wish I could see such writing for intelligent-like-a-brick characters in modern games...

[Luridis]

Alright, lets end this right now...

 

Stories

 

Every generation of RPGs has it's good ones and bad ones. When I started the thread I was focusing on the way the guy in the video played Skyrim, not the story that was being told. I've seen good and bad stories in all sorts of genres over the years. That's sort of like saying the only good fiction is what's written by now dead people, when it's just that they've had time to become more renown postmortem.

 

That said, I am tried of save the world. I'd like to see more "save yourself" and "fix the world, or don't. But, there is a price either way."

[Volourn]

"Games have become whole lot better in terms of storytelling recently, uh-huh."

 

It's true. And, using PST as your one go to is weak. PST is the exception that proves the rule.

[Gizmo]

Compare to this to the original Fallout. If I give the Vault Dweller an Intelligence stat of 1, he'll be unable to communicate in anything but oohas, ahhs, grunts, and growls:

...

Such a character won't be able to get most of the quests, because everyone will dismiss him as an idiot. Yet the game can still be completed this way. On the other hand, a character with the right stats can finish the game without firing a single shot. Story and gameplay are integrated, so that one character might have a completely different path through the story than another.

 

But of course... while that option does exist... surely it is to account for Mentat or Psycho withdrawal penalties that may be in effect at the time of the conversation.  It wouldn't do to have the PC [currently drooling] to speak elequently or without any hindurance while under a -4 inteligence penalty.

 

*And in the case of dissmissive NPCs, the effect is temporary, and [hopefully] they can be approached later.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Gizmo

[teknoman2]

the best line i ve read (i dont remember where) is that skyrim will be the standard by which future players will judge RPGs. first thing that came to my mind was "we're doomed"

the definition of RPG is not very clear cut, but if we simply go by the name itself, then it is the game in which you assume the role of someone and through the actions you choose for that someone to perform, you interact with an imaginary world, shaping the future events for you, others or even the world itself. since a cRPG does not have the narative freedom to adjust "on the fly" in case of unpredictable player behaviour, it uses a few predermined nodes along a more or less linear story to put the player in one of 2 or 3 predermined sequences or events to give a sembiance of impact to his actions.

the bigest problem, is that people have linked the term RPG with specific game mechanics  like levels, stats, skills, party control, inventory, quests, combat etc and dont even know what "role play" is. an RPG does not even need most of that to be such. the game mechanics of a game like "This war of mine", offer a more solid role play experience than most flashy AAA RPGs in the last 10 years, and it's not even an RPG

[Luridis]

the best line i ve read (i dont remember where) is that skyrim will be the standard by which future players will judge RPGs. first thing that came to my mind was "we're doomed"

the definition of RPG is not very clear cut, but if we simply go by the name itself, then it is the game in which you assume the role of someone and through the actions you choose for that someone to perform, you interact with an imaginary world, shaping the future events for you, others or even the world itself. since a cRPG does not have the narative freedom to adjust "on the fly" in case of unpredictable player behaviour, it uses a few predermined nodes along a more or less linear story to put the player in one of 2 or 3 predermined sequences or events to give a sembiance of impact to his actions.

the bigest problem, is that people have linked the term RPG with specific game mechanics  like levels, stats, skills, party control, inventory, quests, combat etc and dont even know what "role play" is. an RPG does not even need most of that to be such. the game mechanics of a game like "This war of mine", offer a more solid role play experience than most flashy AAA RPGs in the last 10 years, and it's not even an RPG

Skyrim's strength isn't its story telling or mechanics, it's the free and open world. This can be done much better if some people started to think beyond the conventional way to quantify, determine and store player progression. And the world and stories can adjust on the fly, not to an infinite degree, but there is more latitude than what they did in Skyrim, which was to make most of the stories isolated. Even with that, Skyrim had way too many, in fact a deplorable number of global variables to track conditions.

[Yellow Rabbit]

What? What sense does that make? DA:I is your typical "chosen one saves the world" story that gleefully embraces every RPG cliche known to man. PS:T is a much more personal, character-focussed story that works to subvert many of those same cliches. PS:T is heavily centered around dialogue, while DA:I is much more action-oriented. I get the feeling he's just name-dropping a well-regarded RPG to gave DA:I more credibility.

...

That is actually what I wanted to say. Didn't put it well enough, my bad.

 

Look, there's nothing wrong here. Games designed around concept of "fun" (whether they should be or not - another question), but fun is deeply subjective thing. Not every (wo)man finds reading to be fun. Even fewer find thinking to be so. If you are developer/publisher and seek to sell your game to as many as possible (and you have to, even if only to get back gargantuan development funds of "next-gen graphics") you ought to take a lowest common denominator and divide your game by it. You or me (the gamer) can like it or dislike it, but it is logically right. There were no other ways games could go. AAA titles cannot be intelligent by their own nature, so why keep accusing them of this?

 

You can say that there's Obsidian, who manages to make AAA-games tolerable in this regard at the least and good at the most. But Obs was working only on sequels at first, therefore had strong base in every aspect including technical to begin with, lots of work already done. And even with that every AAA-game they made was severly broken at release in many regards except narrative. For the very first game they want to make without casual gamers in mind they had to go to KS.

 

Moreover, inspiration plays a great role in creative work. I just cannot imagine developer being seriously passionate to make something like Skyrim. More like earning his/her money according to directives from above. Maybe I'm wrong on that one, though.

 

 

 

...The more I see of this guy Volourn, the more looks like his rep is well deserved. Odd.

[Luridis]

 

What? What sense does that make? DA:I is your typical "chosen one saves the world" story that gleefully embraces every RPG cliche known to man. PS:T is a much more personal, character-focussed story that works to subvert many of those same cliches. PS:T is heavily centered around dialogue, while DA:I is much more action-oriented. I get the feeling he's just name-dropping a well-regarded RPG to gave DA:I more credibility.

...

That is actually what I wanted to say. Didn't put it well enough, my bad.

 

Look, there's nothing wrong here. Games designed around concept of "fun" (whether they should be or not - another question), but fun is deeply subjective thing. Not every (wo)man finds reading to be fun. Even fewer find thinking to be so. If you are developer/publisher and seek to sell your game to as many as possible (and you have to, even if only to get back gargantuan development funds of "next-gen graphics") you ought to take a lowest common denominator and divide your game by it. You or me (the gamer) can like it or dislike it, but it is logically right. There were no other ways games could go. AAA titles cannot be intelligent by their own nature, so why keep accusing them of this?

 

You can say that there's Obsidian, who manages to make AAA-games tolerable in this regard at the least and good at the most. But Obs was working only on sequels at first, therefore had strong base in every aspect including technical to begin with, lots of work already done. And even with that every AAA-game they made was severly broken at release in many regards except narrative. For the very first game they want to make without casual gamers in mind they had to go to KS.

 

Moreover, inspiration plays a great role in creative work. I just cannot imagine developer being seriously passionate to make something like Skyrim. More like earning his/her money according to directives from above. Maybe I'm wrong on that one, though.

 

 

 

...The more I see of this guy Volourn, the more looks like his rep is well deserved. Odd.

 

 

I've said this before but... I think Skyrim came at odds with it's own design due to a lot of different factors. That horrid gamebroke engine, limitations of the PS3, etc. Mods make it so much better, I won't play it without them, but I still get the feeling that a lot of corners had to be cut from the original vision. I like Skyrim but I'm not an FPS guy though, I never liked FPS until the first Half Life came along, and then I saw how a developer could create a compelling story there, along with mechanics and enemies that tell stories of their own. It really is a shame that I rarely see any other FPS noted for its story and atmosphere. I tried that Last Light game and found myself bored pretty quickly.

 

Games shouldn't always be designed around fun, the flash show Extra Credits covered that and did a pretty good job I thought. For some reason that show seems to be haunted by some controversy in its past, but I've never bothered to dig into that.

 

And yes, Volourn is great... We definitely don't agree on everything, but interesting conversation comes from differing perspectives, not ones that are more or less the same.

 

Edit: Come to think of it, part of why I like TES is probably because I started playing at Daggerfall, where as most people discovered the games when Morrowind hit the scene. I also played the Might & Magic series, which is sort of in-between games like the Gold Box RPGs and the first person perspective of TES. It was first person, but party + turn based combat, had really odd puzzles too. The end of book 2 was a surprise, but also made you wonder WTF it had to do with the game.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Luridis