Discussion about how much "freedom" and plot

[Mateuszk]

Hello everyone,

 

I absolutely love PoE and Tyranny and I am following the PoE2 development with excitement, but I would like to discuss with others, what is the most disappointing in other similar games, so we learn by mistakes of others

 

Personally for me the most important is involving story. So it keeps me interested to continuing the game.

I played other games (won't mention titles) but

• Much "freedom" which often without criticism is assumed to be a good thing. As an example, I played game where too many events unfold at once, I got lost, distracted from the main plot, completely lost interest in game, although graphics was better than in any other RPG I played.
• Conversations with no purpose. As an example, I ask NPC about something, it tells the story, which I read, try to understand, feel it, but it turns out that story is completely irrelevant to anything that can possibly happen in the game, and it was quite long read.

What are your observations, mistakes that you find unpleasant in RPG games ? Do you agree with above ? Is the story also the most important for you ?

[daven]

I do think having too much freedom/open world makes me lose interest. Replay-ability and open worlds seem to be all the rage.

 

I don't like how linearity is pretty much always considered bad now, if a game is linear it can be much more focused if it's story heavy. I find it difficult to really get into the story of Skyrim. You're just left to get on and do whatever, which can be enjoyable in it's own way however I really have no interest in the story as it hold's little weight due to the open nature of the game.

Edited November 7, 2017 by daven

[Wormerine]

Open design is a wonderful thing, but it takes a lot of work to do properly. Bethesda games never worked for me because they are open, but not reactive. There is a big appeal to having world open to you and be given an ability to explore it at your will. However, if that is a case dev needs to foresee what player can do and prepare for it. If players are given freedom but games randomly restricts them or contradicts player actions it feels bad.

 

Some structure is always needed and interesting choices are much more valuable to me than shallow ones.

 

Story is why I play RPGs but it doesn’t necessarily mean “plot”. I really really love Deus Ex games, I enjoyed KOTOR. Gothic1&2, Fallout New Vegas and Witcher 3 are examples of open design I really enjoyed. One of those was done by Obsidian so I have high hopes for more open structure of Deadfire.

 

To me enjoyment of an RPG comes more from quest design & writing. While it is connected to way world is presented engaging quests can be done in open and more focused game.

[rjshae]

Conversations with no purpose. As an example, I ask NPC about something, it tells the story, which I read, try to understand, feel it, but it turns out that story is completely irrelevant to anything that can possibly happen in the game, and it was quite long read.

 

I consider sidebar interactions like that to be part of the immersive exploration of the setting, so to me it adds to the experience. Not everything has to be directly related to the main story, and those little bits of lore help fill out the feel of the place. That being said, lengthy exposition tend to be a drag on the game's pacing, so I think they should be edited down.

[Wormerine]

I consider sidebar interactions like that to be part of the immersive exploration of the setting, so to me it adds to the experience. Not everything has to be directly related to the main story, and those little bits of lore help fill out the feel of the place. That being said, lengthy exposition tend to be a drag on the game's pacing, so I think they should be edited down.

Sure, but there is also world building and thematic consistency. PoE while has side stories they all explore similar themes and add to overall experience. While sometime stand alone adventures world well (BG2) often they can feel like they don't fit the game or main story.

[TheisEjsing]

Are you guys saying...

 

 

You don't like freedom?

[Mateuszk]

 

Conversations with no purpose. As an example, I ask NPC about something, it tells the story, which I read, try to understand, feel it, but it turns out that story is completely irrelevant to anything that can possibly happen in the game, and it was quite long read.

 

I consider sidebar interactions like that to be part of the immersive exploration of the setting, so to me it adds to the experience. Not everything has to be directly related to the main story, and those little bits of lore help fill out the feel of the place. That being said, lengthy exposition tend to be a drag on the game's pacing, so I think they should be edited down.

 

 

Let me explain with more elaborate hypothetical example to give you a better feeling about what I mean

 

You want to solve certain puzzle in the game to discover new location, so you know from some source that king might know the answer. You step into nearest Tavern and ask bartender if he knows where can you find the king.

Bartender answers with a question. Did you see that blacksmith in front of the market which is few meters away from the church that is located near barber shop ? Well there lives a smith who was born outside of this village, he once crafted a powerful weapon that helped our current king slay the dragon. This weapon was made of special crystal, which can be only obtained from the mine guarded by the powerful golems. To kill golems you will need sacred water, from the well near the central market in elf village, but to enter the village you first need to undergo special ritual <you keep reading and you keep reading> After half an hour you know the whole story of this empire, and you ask again. But can you tell me where is the king ? The bartender answers. The king ? Ah king.. well I don't know that.

 

I love reading fantasy books, stories and to me, the whole story in the game is what makes game interesting. I really don't care as much about game spells, classes, weapons and the most I don't enjoy clicking to kill 10th time the same monster or saving the princess. I would like to feel the character, understand them, grow into being part of the party and when game ends, I would like to remember locations, music, characters and miss them

[MaxQuest]

Much "freedom" which often without criticism is assumed to be a good thing. As an example, I played game where too many events unfold at once, I got lost, distracted from the main plot, completely lost interest in game, although graphics was better than in any other RPG I played.

I generally like having "freedom" in a game, as in "free to choose the order of doing things".

But yes, too much freedom can be bad, if it's implemented without taking player's inner state in account. The minor problem I had in Oblivion, Skyrim and Witcher 3 is the sense of urgency. You have to find Ciri asap, but hey, here's a game of gwent! And doing sidequests makes you feel sorry.

It be great if games with free world had 3 stages:

- early game: main quest #1; feeling of urgency; getting hooked; but somewhat short (2-4 hours).

- mid game: free world; no urgency; sidequest; do what you want.

- late game: main quest #2; pursuing the main antagonist; final, hard and multi-staged battle. Ending slides or scene.

 

Conversations with no purpose. As an example, I ask NPC about something, it tells the story, which I read, try to understand, feel it, but it turns out that story is completely irrelevant to anything that can possibly happen in the game, and it was quite long read.

If it's completely irrelevant - it should not be in the game, imho.

Or at least there should be a chance to catch a rumor, pointer to some "treasure/bounty" or an interesting piece of lore. I.e. it needs to have a real purpose.

 

What are your observations, mistakes that you find unpleasant in RPG games?

1. Opaque character creation.

- When first time creating a character, I don't know do I want more of stat1 or of stat2, as I don't know the nature of encounters I have to face

- Nor do I know if the game is another "bump everything into one stat" or "go with a balanced approach"

- Do I want a skill that inflicts "a short term" "burn" or a "short term" "bleed"? How more vague can it get? Especially if there are no detailed tooltips, nor a link to status effects.

- Oh, there are tooltips! Ok, what do I want?: a melee attack that hits everyone in arc in front of me for 44 damage, or a fireball that hits for 15? Wait, they have same cooldown? Hmm, this game seems to favor melee. What about heals? There is a restoration spell that heals for 11. Well, this game seems all about phys damage.

- Going with a melee phys damager. Knight. Oh, the tooltips on character creation lied.

- Ok, screw it. For the first run, I will go not for the seeming optimal class/role/spread; but with an archetype in mind! I want a very sturdy battlemage that is able to drain the life essense of his foes. No such archetype? Disappointment. Ok, I'll pick another. The problem is that if I am going for archetype the stats should be somewhat realistic, and often they aren't.

2. Discrepancy in stats. Paladins with weapons that have higher intellect that themselves. Rogues with 30 str and 9000 agi.

3. Broken mechanics. In Skyrim it's too easy to build an OP character. While another extremity being: it doesn't even really matter what weapon do you pick (AC4)

4. Lying tooltips. Missing tooltips. Vague tooltips.

5. Final Boss being too weak. It's like the whole game was big and long preparation for this calamitous encounter... and then you face a xaurip.

6. Limited combat archetypes. Lack of variety.

7. Lack of balance. +/- 20% in general impact is ok. But when you don't want to take a class at all, is not good.

8. Lack of even higher difficulty that gets unlocked after first playthrough.

9. Lack of conversation choices. The game asks you: A, B or C. And none of them is what you or your character would answer. You are getting blocked.

10. Lack of NPC reactivity. Hey, that's a high level dragonborn! Let's rob him.

11. The sense of artificial urgency in a free world. And thus feeling sorry for doing sidequests.

12. Overly big swords. Childish graphic style.

/rant off

 

Do you agree with above ? Is the story also the most important for you?

The most important? Not sure.

Just important? In RPGs sure it is.

 

The story doesn't have to be super detailed through. But it has to get me engaged, and never ever induce the sense of disbelief.

Additionally I really need to like at least some of main characters, in order to feel attached and really invested.

Edited November 8, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Wormerine]

I generally like having "freedom" in a game, as in "free to choose the order of doing things".But yes, too much freedom can be bad, if it's implemented without taking player's inner state in account. The minor problem I had in Oblivion, Skyrim and Witcher 3 is the sense of urgency. You have to find Ciri asap, but hey, here's a game of gwent! And doing sidequests makes you feel sorry.

Hmmmm I thought Witcher3 did a great job balancing urgency vs exploration. Yes, you were looking for Ciri but there never was a push for hurrying. Leads were vague, sidequests were paced via lvl system making sure you never were away from main plot for too long. Bigger sidequests would come back later on becoming relevant to the main story. Smaller quests would flesh out the world giving you a better idea of people around you. Gwent was silly but as it was a 4th wall breaking joke I treated it more like a break for myself rather than something Geralt is actually doing.

 

Even Heart of Stone found a really good way of involving player in major sidestory while not taking player away from main game like White March did.

 

Still Witcher3 is a very directed and limited experience, but I did like small details like that you could start a quests from multiple points. The proper starting point was usually message board, but you could just talk to quest giver, stumble upon monster tracks or monster itself and quests would adjust. There is nothing more frustrating than finding an empty cave (or perma locked doors) only to be sent back there 10 minutes later after talking to quest giver.

[Madscientist]

I like several games with a very different amount of freedom.

 

- I like JRPGS that are linear and have a good story. The last good game I played was legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel.

- There are some open world games I like, for example arcanum and Fallout 1, 2 and NV, Gothic 1+2 and Risen 1.

- I also like games who are in between these extremes, e.g. Pillars of Eternity or BG2.

 

For me, story and atmoshere are most importent for a game. If this is good then I can live with a not so good character or combat system. TBH, Gothic and arcanum had not very good systems, but I liked those games a lot.

 

There are some things I do not like in games.

- An open world that is boring. In Oblivion, Skyrim and Fallout 3 you just walk around, doing some quests and clearing some dungeons. But it feels just repetivive and you have no reason for what you are doing ( I liked Morrowind more than those games, though I do not know why). Gothic 3 had a huge world but it was boring because the story was: Do sidequests until one faction likes you so much that they give you the BIG quest which is to kill the leaders of the other factions.

- Fake options. Like the game lets you chose between A and B, but A happens anyway. I do not mind a linear story, but then don´t pretend to give me a choice.

- I even think that too much freedom in character creation can be bad. Look at the Larian games or arcanum. Every char can learn everything. This way the game becomes completely unbalanced because some combinations are completely OP and others are completely useless. I think that PoE was very good in this regard. You could create several useful builds for each class and each class felt different than the others.

- I think that balance is importent in a single player game too. When there are classes and stats, each class and stat should feel at least a bit usefull. PoE is very good in that. As a bad example, compare a fighter->mage with a mage->fighter in BG2. For somebody who does not know the system well both options seem similar, but one choice is much better than the other. No need for perfect balance (if all choices are equally good, the choice does not matter), but at least every char should feel somewhat useful.

 

Unlike somebody else before, I do like to get many info about the worlf and its people, even if it is not directly connected to the story. It makes the world feel more alive. I really like the Trails games ( I have played Trails in the Sky 1,2,3 and Cold Steel 1). Almost every villager has a name and when you talk to them they will tell you their story and lots of those things have nothing to do with the main quest. This way the world feels alive and realistic. The world is not just a background for the hero to have an epic quest. Its a real world where not everything revolves around you and other things are happening when you do not look.

Such extra info should not be forced on the player, but it should be there when you talk to people that are not importent to the main story or if you read books.

[MaxQuest]

Hmmmm I thought Witcher3 did a great job balancing urgency vs exploration. Yes, you were looking for Ciri but there never was a push for hurrying.

They did a good job. Still, I was asking myself when giving fencing lessons, taking a contract or investigating murders in Novigrad: what am I doing?, I need to find Ciri first.

 

It also reminds me of Oblivion: you have to find Brother Martin, he can be in danger!

Well... the grandmaster of fighter, mage and thief guilds is finnaly ready to look up for him)

 

Even Heart of Stone found a really good way of involving player in major sidestory while not taking player away from main game like White March did.

I did it after the main story)

 

Still Witcher3 is a very directed and limited experience, but I did like small details like that you could start a quests from multiple points. The proper starting point was usually message board, but you could just talk to quest giver, stumble upon monster tracks or monster itself and quests would adjust. There is nothing more frustrating than finding an empty cave (or perma locked doors) only to be sent back there 10 minutes later after talking to quest giver.

Absolutely. That should become a standard in quest-giving.

[Mateuszk]

I have an impression that thread might turn into complain about games wall, wasn't really my initial intention. Can we somehow steer it into analysis type discussion, maybe without giving exact name of games failing in certain aspect, but just mentioning what features are appreciated and which are irritating in balanced way. Not just "no no no no" but more like this "no" but this "yes", more like constructive criticism that devs potentially reading this can benefit from and improve the game ?

 

Not saying this is happening, but...

[rjshae]

 

 

Conversations with no purpose. As an example, I ask NPC about something, it tells the story, which I read, try to understand, feel it, but it turns out that story is completely irrelevant to anything that can possibly happen in the game, and it was quite long read.

 

I consider sidebar interactions like that to be part of the immersive exploration of the setting, so to me it adds to the experience. Not everything has to be directly related to the main story, and those little bits of lore help fill out the feel of the place. That being said, lengthy exposition tend to be a drag on the game's pacing, so I think they should be edited down.

 

 

Let me explain with more elaborate hypothetical example to give you a better feeling about what I mean

 

You want to solve certain puzzle in the game to discover new location, so you know from some source that king might know the answer. You step into nearest Tavern and ask bartender if he knows where can you find the king.

Bartender answers with a question. Did you see that blacksmith in front of the market which is few meters away from the church that is located near barber shop ? Well there lives a smith who was born outside of this village, he once crafted a powerful weapon that helped our current king slay the dragon. This weapon was made of special crystal, which can be only obtained from the mine guarded by the powerful golems. To kill golems you will need sacred water, from the well near the central market in elf village, but to enter the village you first need to undergo special ritual <you keep reading and you keep reading> After half an hour you know the whole story of this empire, and you ask again. But can you tell me where is the king ? The bartender answers. The king ? Ah king.. well I don't know that.

 

Yup, well to me that's an element of a role-playing game. Your hypothetical character is behaving more like a real life character, not a quest marker. He's filled out some of the world lore and helped with the immersion. Sure, maybe his wits are addled a bit from dipping into the sauce too much, but that's part of his persona.

[MaxQuest]

Not just "no no no no" but more like this "no" but this "yes"

Duh, you have got what you asked for in the starting post 

 

I have an impression that thread might turn into complain about games wall, wasn't really my initial intention. Can we somehow steer it into analysis type discussion, maybe without giving exact name of games failing in certain aspect, but just mentioning what features are appreciated and which are irritating in balanced way. Not just "no no no no" but more like this "no" but this "yes", more like constructive criticism that devs potentially reading this can benefit from and improve the game ?

Sure.

So analysis of common shortcomings in rpg games, that are potentially related to Deadfire, and looking for the ways to alleviate them?

[Lephys]

I don't really think there's much of a ceiling to exploratory freedom in a game like this. However, I do think that the ratio of "story" to "random exploration" has to be kept in check. I think a game either needs to be a sandbox, or a cohesive story-world. When it tries to be both, it fails in some respect.

 

Most of the bigger-budget games nowadays try WAY too hard to firmly separate optional stuff from core-path stuff. I understand this to an extent, but the game really needs to organically let the player decide how much is optional. When you start trying to forcibly say "Oh, I wouldn't want this to be something significant someone could miss out on," you start deliberately watering down all the "optional" content. "Oh, better make this optional quest pretty unimportant, lest it become something a player feels they must do." Heaven forbid the story compel you to engage in it.

 

Anywho... That's the biggest thing I've noticed. And no, if the main plot is that you're trying to stop an evil force from taking over the ruling family and wrecking the kingdom, every single side-quest you bump into or townsperson you talk to doesn't have to DIRECTLY have knowledge about the evil force or the conflict at hand, but I think a lot of times too much stuff is just lore exposition for the sake of lore exposition. It's not often you see all this "Ask about kingdom... ask about Henry" exposition actually help you by providing additional dialogue options later in the game. As in "Oh, I actually know the history of this castle! I can now bring THIS up, when I couldn't before!", etc.

 

The best illustration I have of tons of irrelevant side-stuff is Dragon Age: Inquisition. When you actually got to the things that pertained to the main story (and prior story of the earlier games), it was REALLY GOOD! But, about 80% of the stuff wasn't so much fleshing out the story or world as it was just "fleshing out this zone full of content." It feel a bit flat. You didn't really care that this abandoned campsite that you were looting belonged to such-and-such. There were some exceptions, but for the most part, it was just random "fight things and loot stuff" content that THEN had some text try to tell you why you should care about it. And most of it was completely isolated. Not a soul in the world would so much as mention "Oh, hey, I heard that ancient ruin that's prominently protruding from the hillside in this area isn't cursed anymore. That affects the area pretty significantly, and now people are moving trade goods, etc."

 

 

- Fake options. Like the game lets you chose between A and B, but A happens anyway. I do not mind a linear story, but then don´t pretend to give me a choice.

 

Oh man. I hate that. You see this even in things you wouldn't think of as choices, per se. Like "Sneak past everyone, OR shotgun everyone in the face!" I mean... that's better than only getting to do one or the other, but you're still choosing to get past all the enemies. That's not a very significant choice. Or "Defeat everyone with bolts of magic that do ice damage!" vs "Defeat everyone with bolts of magic that do Fire damage!". It's a choice, but the game isn't making it interesting at all.

 

Anywho, the main thing with this is those dialogue/interaction choices. And the most common thing you see, besides a lack of choice, is something overly simplistic, like "Diplomacy your way out of combat, but still get all the rewards, and probably BONUS exp for pacifising so hard! 8D!". OR, like you said, they give you a choice, but then the same exact thing happens no matter what, and the game's like "See, this is the real world, and sometimes you can't affect things." Which really isn't true. You can ALWAYS affect something. Even if you help out a resistance, and the big overlord still takes over/retains power... you didn't change the immediate fact that he was in power, but your actions should at least change the state of morale in the resistance, or their resources available, such that further down the road they're able to do better in taking him down than they were able to without your help.

 

This is one of the biggest problems I see in RPGs. The games seem to be designed with your choice of outcomes in mind, and not your choices with direct consequences in mind. You should be choosing what you're character's going to do in response to something -- what they're going to spend their effort points on, essentially -- and not what you hope to accomplish. It's the difference between "(Convince Steve to not-kill the puppy)" and having 5 other options to do/say that could all result in him either killing the puppy or not killing it AND feeling/thinking differently about the situation after the fact. Maybe he kills it, but regrets it because he thinks on what you said. Maybe he kills it and reinforces his "life's tough, so I had to do this to prove how tough I am, and now I've got more resolve in killing innocent things if I have to, so this was good" notions. Maybe he doesn't kill it, and later regrets that.

 

Stopping at "what happened? Did you convince him, or didn't you?" is simplistic. Also, sorry for such a weird example scenario. I don't know why there would ever be a bunch of turmoil over whether or not someone should kill a puppy. Maybe it's one of those "we're training you to be a hardcore agent of our organization, and you raised this puppy, and now you must kill it to prove your stone-cold resolve!" situations? *shrug*.

[Valmy]

I am not a huge fan of open worlds. I mean yes they were cool in the Ultima Series back in the day and the Elder Scrolls but that is only one style of game. It shouldn't be every game. For Obsidian I want a linear story heavy game and if there are choices I want them to be big choices that dramatically impact the game. I loved how in Tyranny there were four different paths that had pretty significant differences in how one approached each section of the game. The enemies might be different. The NPCs might be different. Your goal in the scenario might be different. That was great and I hope to see more of that. Only more so. I want it even MORE different. Though I know developers are not big fans of that kind of thing.

 

As for fluff and background color I am cool with that, usually games make it pretty clear what pieces of information are part of the story and which ones are fluff.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Valmy

[Lephys]

There's nothing inherently wrong with open worlds. They're just WAY overdone nowadays, and they're usually a bit too sandboxy (just... content for the sake of content... here's looking at you, Fallout 4!).

[DigitalCrack]

I am not a huge fan of open worlds. I mean yes they were cool in the Ultima Series back in the day and the Elder Scrolls but that is only one style of game. It shouldn't be every game. For Obsidian I want a linear story heavy game and if there are choices I want them to be big choices that dramatically impact the game. I loved how in Tyranny there were four different paths that had pretty significant differences in how one approached each section of the game. The enemies might be different. The NPCs might be different. Your goal in the scenario might be different. That was great and I hope to see more of that. Only more so. I want it even MORE different. Though I know developers are not big fans of that kind of thing.

 

As for fluff and background color I am cool with that, usually games make it pretty clear what pieces of information are part of the story and which ones are fluff.

There have been a handfull of games that accomplish both freedom and deep story with big affectual choices. My biggest gripe with Tyranny was that it was too linear and too short. I like having lots of other content to enjoy especially if I like the game. I dont like feeling like I am on rails when playing a game and even tyranny with it choices was essentially just a "choose your rail" experience. There wasnt the excitement that comes with exploring and stumbling across ruins that turns into a full blown quest to hunt and slay a wraith thats been plauging the nearby village.. I mean thats what makes rpg worlds feel real, to me anyway.

[Wormerine]

There have been a handfull of games that accomplish both freedom and deep story with big affectual choices. My biggest gripe with Tyranny was that it was too linear and too short. I like having lots of other content to enjoy especially if I like the game. I dont like feeling like I am on rails when playing a game and even tyranny with it choices was essentially just a "choose your rail" experience. There wasnt the excitement that comes with exploring and stumbling across ruins that turns into a full blown quest to hunt and slay a wraith thats been plauging the nearby village.. I mean thats what makes rpg worlds feel real, to me anyway.

Yes, I found Tyranny's approach to story and choices impressive but unsatisfying (similar to Witcher 2). 

 

I much prefer multiple smaller choices throughout the entire game with their own repercussions than couple world changing big choices. In both games commitement to making your choices impact the world were impressive but in the end felt underwhelming. Tyranny's opening act is spectacular but the rest of the game you don't get to make interesting choices but rather see results of the first act choice. That is not too entertaining to me.

 

This is one of the biggest problems I see in RPGs. The games seem to be designed with your choice of outcomes in mind, and not your choices with direct consequences in mind. You should be choosing what you're character's going to do in response to something -- what they're going to spend their effort points on, essentially -- and not what you hope to accomplish. It's the difference between "(Convince Steve to not-kill the puppy)" and having 5 other options to do/say that could all result in him either killing the puppy or not killing it AND feeling/thinking differently about the situation after the fact. Maybe he kills it, but regrets it because he thinks on what you said. Maybe he kills it and reinforces his "life's tough, so I had to do this to prove how tough I am, and now I've got more resolve in killing innocent things if I have to, so this was good" notions. Maybe he doesn't kill it, and later regrets that.

As an extension of that thought I did notice I enjoy RPGs without defined villain more. I get the need for a "hook" and a defined antagonists like Thaos, Darth Malak or Irenicus do restrict your story and purpose. "Pick your antagonist" while you play is much more interesting idea. I get that creating a motivation which your custom created character will follow is a tricky thing to do over and over again. But flexible finale is much more interesting than multiple ending slides. 

 

If you make multiple endings "choose your ending" button is not very fun. Original Deus Ex managed to make last level of the game engaging making you go through different objectives depending on what faction you wanted to ally with. "press the button you want" from Human Revolution or PoE feels contrived. 

[Valmy]

 

I am not a huge fan of open worlds. I mean yes they were cool in the Ultima Series back in the day and the Elder Scrolls but that is only one style of game. It shouldn't be every game. For Obsidian I want a linear story heavy game and if there are choices I want them to be big choices that dramatically impact the game. I loved how in Tyranny there were four different paths that had pretty significant differences in how one approached each section of the game. The enemies might be different. The NPCs might be different. Your goal in the scenario might be different. That was great and I hope to see more of that. Only more so. I want it even MORE different. Though I know developers are not big fans of that kind of thing.

 

As for fluff and background color I am cool with that, usually games make it pretty clear what pieces of information are part of the story and which ones are fluff.

There have been a handfull of games that accomplish both freedom and deep story with big affectual choices. My biggest gripe with Tyranny was that it was too linear and too short. I like having lots of other content to enjoy especially if I like the game. I dont like feeling like I am on rails when playing a game and even tyranny with it choices was essentially just a "choose your rail" experience. There wasnt the excitement that comes with exploring and stumbling across ruins that turns into a full blown quest to hunt and slay a wraith thats been plauging the nearby village.. I mean thats what makes rpg worlds feel real, to me anyway.

 

 

See I don't mind that. Great games can be both on rails or not on rails. If I am going to be on rails just provide me a compelling reason to go down those rails and I am alright. Being on rails enables you to make more meaningful choices IMO. With more freedom and open games there are too many variables.

 

They are just different methods of story telling. I don't think one is inherently better than the other.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Valmy

[PrimeHydra]

I don't think we need to worry about Deadfire throwing away semi-open progression for sandbox-style "open world" absolutism. While I can handle a certain amount of freedom, you are right that "open world" is overly fetishized and a bit at odds with coherent, compelling narrative. For those who would rather write their own story, good for them, but I don't think PoE is that kind of series. It places a premium on unfolding a central tale rather than making it one of many equally valid time sucks, differing only in that it can cause the game to "finish".

[Wormerine]

See I don't mind that. Great games can be both on rails or not on rails. If I am going to be on rails just provide me a compelling reason to go down those rails and I am alright. Being on rails enables you to make more meaningful choices IMO. With more freedom and open games there are too many variables.

 

They are just different methods of story telling. I don't think one is inherently better than the other.

I do see interactivity (and therefore certain amount of freedom) as an important part of an RPG. I am a big fan of narrative, more linear games, but I prefer my RPGs to be more open. If you provide a character for me I am completely fine with experiencing the story and world through their eyes. If you ask me to come up with the character I want to be able to decide how he/she will interact with the world.

[injurai]

I don't think the end all be all in games is freedom, though it's extremely important to offer certain degrees of freedom.

 

Often times linear sections work really well if they ask the player to rise to the occasion. Either on the grounds of developing a skill, learning the rules of an engagement, or to solute a puzzle.

 

Sometimes it's nice to have many simultaneous choices of linear engagements, perhaps partially ordered. Where each one forces the player to understand what is being set forth for them. Other times it's nice to have choice removed from what engagement to pick, but your solution can be wide and varied. Sometimes the two forms play off each other and can parameterize the setup of each scenario.

 

Both linear/open sequences and free/obligatory engagements can suffer from pacing issues if the player is only being given one mode of interaction. For Deadfire I think we can all agree we want the scales to swing towards open and free, but I think we'd all agree that the illusion within a sequence can be more than enough, especially if it gives us back pacing.

[Lephys]

I think the focus/approach should be meeting the minimum. Or rather... "Do we have enough freedom here?". "Do we have enough focus/'linearity' here?". The problem really comes from a lack, rather than an abundance of something. You can have a TON of freedom, but if you've got "Here, do 7,000 hours worth of random, unrelated 'freedom' content, but when you're done with that, come back to the 40 hours of actual focused content," you're in trouble. It's not necessarily because you've got 7,000 hours of freedom, but because you don't have enough cohesion in that. Too linear is really just a lack of freedom, and vice versa.

 

Sometimes, it seems like the focus is "How much freedom can we cram into this?!" *coughSKYRIMcough*, and it ends up being a problem because of the lack of focus.

 

It's a bit like a tree. If you climb a branchless tree, it's not very exciting. "Where should I go? Oh, up the only frigging path." BUT, if you climb a tree with branches coming out of branches coming out of other branches, you're going to get to one of the outer branches, and it's just going to snap off. It's too top-heavy and wide. Rampant roaming, by definition, is the opposite of a focused campaign, and pure linear rails are the opposite of exploration and freedom.

[FlintlockJazz]

I think from the way I have heard Obsidian talk about quests and plots and stories that they have the right approach and mindset.  They seem to realise that they are more like GMs in a tabletop RPG than a film director or book writer, that they are creating an interactive experience.  They get that they need to create lore and story but also that they need to include player choice and reactivity.  That they may have a really awesome story to tell, but realise that forcing the player down certain tracks is like the GM who railroads his players because he wants them to do this or that.  I think Josh has even said that he wouldn't want someone working for him who just wanted to tell a story, that it is their job to let the player tell their own story while they provide characters and lore and opportunities.   Even if that opportunity results in you being killed or creating a failed game state (killing Lady Webb), hey just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should be able to get away with it!

 

There is a certain scene in Dragon Age that sums up the wrong attitude to have (and also shows one of the reasons why I think it is not a good game, sorry to the fans here).  When you first meet Zevran, you have a woman come running up to you screaming for help and that you must follow her!  Naturally, my first thought was trap, so I let her run on ahead and scrutinised the situation.  I could see that there wasn't any fighting going on and what is that?  Why its a literal trap!  And another!  What a surprise.  So I bimbled over to the first one with the intention of disarming them all before doing my own trap on them, only to have a cutscene fire up of me running into the trap, and being all surprised!  The enemy even gloated over me falling for the trap while I was like "Uh, no!!  **** that ****!"  And that's before we even get to the Forced Dilemnas  that were present in that game, mainly because the game withheld information that would have been known to you in order to pull gotchas on you that you could still see coming a mile off.  And characters who not only had plot armour, but threw their plot armour in your face so deserving to be stabbed in the face but unable to because she was the developers' pet character (can you guess who I'm talking about?!) .

 

Alpha Protocol, on the other hand, let you have the opportunity to murder most of the cast at one point or another just because they knew some players would be like "Yeah don't like this guy, gonna kill 'em".  Steven Heck is like the one guy you can't ever kill I think.  I like Heck.