  |
|
| View previous topic - View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mandrake
elementry school minded asshole
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 1341
Location: GNARR!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rainer Deyke
Demon Hunter
Joined: 05 Jun 2002
Posts: 672
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:57 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
My reponse to various individual statements in the article:
| Quote: | | For the purposes of this article, a computer RPG is a game in which character development and character interaction take precedence over other factors and where each player's experience of the story is determined by individual choice rather than designer fiat. |
Interesting. I think I can agree with this definition, even though typical linear console rpgs are almost excluded.
| Quote: | | Though broad, this definition clearly eliminates ... shooters and platform action games (lack of individual choice). |
This raises the question: do shooters platform action games necessarily give the player less choice about how their story unfolds than rpgs? And if they don't, would they be considered rpgs?
| Quote: | | Done well, branching can provide a powerful illusion of freedom for players. But, that's all it can provide - an illusion. The reality is that, if we don't put something in the game, on the screen, in the mouths of nonplayer characters (NPCs), it doesn't happen - and no amount of branching can allow players to do things we don't allow them to do. What this means is that the choices available to players solely as a result of branching are false, because eventually players are forced back onto one of the paths that we've created for them. |
Yes, everything that is in the game was put there by the designer. However, this doesn't make the choices the player makes any less real. Silly analogy: if I order something in a restaurant, I am limited by the menu, which includes only what the restaurant owner put there. However, it would be absurd to say that this makes my choice of meal illusory.
| Quote: | | It's also important to realize that once you do spend your development dollars on giving the player power over the way in which your story unfolds, that should become the emphasis of your game. You should try to give your players a big, contiguous world to explore and you should let them explore it freely and in wany way they want - even at the expense of character development. |
I disagree completely. There is a very interesting middle ground between freeform games and linear games which hasn't really been explored in any detail yet. I believe that the destiny of rpgs is to fill that middle ground. I'm talking about games which clearly tell a story, but let the player make the critical decisions that affect how the story unfolds. Don't give the player the freedom to give up his adventuring career and become a merchant - nobody really cares about that. Let the player choose between rescuing a loved one (and sacrificing the village) or saving the village (and sacrificing a loved one).
| Quote: | | If we as game designers allow each player's character to be unique, and thus differentiate each player's experience of the game, we have been successful. |
Sure, if that's your (only) goal. Personally, I'm quite willing to play a predesigned character if the game has other things to offer.
| Quote: | | Mission structure also goes hand-in-hand with linearity and, together, they allow us to tell the best stories possible. |
No, they don't (and that's all the response that statement deserves).
| Quote: | | If you choose to include full party control in your single-player game, recognize that you'll reduce player involvement and turn off people who value tactical thinking in games. |
Did he really just say that controlling a party instead of a single character leads to less tactical thinking?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hajo
Demon Hunter
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 779
Location: Between chair and keyboard.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:06 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: |
Players must always have clear goals. Though free to stray from the storyline at will, players must know what they're supposed to be doing, minute to minute and, if appropriate, mission to mission. The fun of the game is in overcoming obstacles and solving problems; the fun is in how you solve a problem, not in guessing what problem you're supposed to solve.
|
A while ago, somewhere else, I was asking why H-World is so unpopular (I was promoting the engine there for many months).
Quite a lot of people told me, they didn't know what to do after they started "The Jungle" module.
My intention had been to give the players freedom, let them choose what they do and how they do it. I meant to create a playground, a world to adventure in.
Obviously a rather large number of players don't appreciate this - maybe they just didn't get it, or were surprised because all the games they had played before keep them on the run with one quest after the other.
I didn't (and still don't) understand their wish for being driven.
I really felt driven in Baldurs Gate II
I never could make decisions of my own, always someone wanted me to do something for them. I barely dared to talk to anyone because I was afraid of getting a new task to do, while all I wanted to do was learning a bit more about the world. The game kept me on the run all the time. After getting more and more quests that just distracted me from my main plan, I stopped playing. Shall they all die and suffer, I'm not their nanny to solve all their itches and problems.
So I face a problem: my idea of freestyle exploration with tasks and quest being optional and not forced on the player seems to be disliked (I rather hope: misunderstood), while I don't like the style that Warren Spector advocates in his "RPG Commandments".
I don't really want to create a game that I wouldn't like ... finally I hope I'll have some fun playing my own game at some point, too.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rainer Deyke
Demon Hunter
Joined: 05 Jun 2002
Posts: 672
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:25 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Most of the quests in Baldur's Gate (aside from those related to the main storyline) were optional. Just because it is added to your quest list doesn't mean you actually have to do it. I haven't played Baldur's Gate 2. Was it different in that regard?
I agree with Warren Spector on this, and I don't think this is incompatible with open ended rpgs at all. For example, give the player the task of travelling through the land, searching for lost books of spells. Don't tell them which specific cities to visit or which npcs they should speak to. Give them plenty of opportunities for side adventures. It doesn't get much more open ended than that, yet the player always has a clear goal to follow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hajo
Demon Hunter
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 779
Location: Between chair and keyboard.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:13 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Rainer Deyke wrote: | | Most of the quests in Baldur's Gate (aside from those related to the main storyline) were optional. Just because it is added to your quest list doesn't mean you actually have to do it. I haven't played Baldur's Gate 2. Was it different in that regard? |
It's been a while that I played BG II, my memories became a bit blurry.
IIRC it was the style how the quest were given. If a quest is on my list, I feel urged to do it. Ignoring it will make me feel bad. I don't like lists of unfinished tasks.
I'd like the initiative reversed: I actively have to ask for a quest to get one. IMO it's wrong that every NPC that I meet pushes a quest on me. I want to be able to talk to an NPC without risking one more quest on my list if I don't like to do it now.
Instead of the NPC immediately talking about their problems to me, I'd like to be able to do some informative smalltalk, and at some point be able to ask "Can I help you?" or "Do you have a job for an adventurer?". If I don't ask, they keep their problems private.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandrake
elementry school minded asshole
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 1341
Location: GNARR!
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:07 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Wow, here I was hoping you guys would rip this article a new asshole. This is a terrible article. It doesn't say anything new or interesting, it plans at looking at the future of RPG's, but instead only shows us the past. I don't think the future of RPG's are in linear plot based games. If that was the case, then MMORPG's would not be as insanely popular as they are now.
My main fault with the article (other than the fact it doesn't bring anything new to the table at all, what so ever) is the same problem Hajo has with the article, primarily this statement->
| Quote: |
Players must always have clear goals. Though free to stray from the storyline at will, players must know what they're supposed to be doing, minute to minute and, if appropriate, mission to mission. The fun of the game is in overcoming obstacles and solving problems; the fun is in how you solve a problem, not in guessing what problem you're supposed to solve.
|
And I think this is bullshit. I've met many a game player who doesn't like the forced linear narrative of a lot of games. Some people do like them, I myself enjoy both a linear game and a non-linear game for two entirely different reasons. And no, saving a princess or getting the amulet of Yonder is not a plot. It is a purpose, it is a reason to put somebody some place, but it does not consitute as a story line unless there is a large over-arching story. A plot has 3 major points and many sub-plots, if these do not come into play then it is not a story based game.
For example, Ultima Underworld is a great fantastic game with no real purpose other than exploration. You don't have an NPC ever five minutes telling you were to go. I
All he is doing is purpoting one type of gameplay over another. And I think he is very wrong in doing that.
_________________
"Well, last time I flicked on a lighter, I'm pretty sure I didn't create a black hole."-
Xmark
http://pauljessup.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hajo
Demon Hunter
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 779
Location: Between chair and keyboard.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:17 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
A while ago I got a book on software engineering. It was published 1996. It was very interesting to read the proposal of 1996 how to improve software creation (and tools), and to see what happened and compare the proposals with the current solutions.
If someone has a lot of excess time, I guess it will be an intersting study to take the article and compare successful games from 2000-2004 with the proposals of the article. This comparison should give a picture which of the proposals have been considered in later products, and maybe even if they contributed to the success of those projects or not.
OTOH most of us don't aim at the mass market. We're already happy if a few dozen people play and like our games.
We should be the avantgarde of game designers, carry ideas to the most exciting and extreme and see what kind of playing experience it results in. We should try the untried, leave the old trodden paths and enter the jungle of the unknown.
"They said it is impossible. Then someone came who didn't know that, and he just did it". I don't remember where I read or heard that, but I think there is some truth in it.
"Things are impossible unless someone does them", it's another variant of the same.
"To do the doable, we must dream the impossible" - oh, if I only could remember who originally said those things.
But I guess you get my point: Companies who want to sell their games need to focus on the mainstream, the things that have proven to work. They will extrapolate the good things and advance in tiny steps. We can do jumps and try new things without too much risk.
We should do the jumps.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mokona
Pretty, Pretty Fairy Princess
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:50 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
To me, the article reads more like "What was going through my mind when I designed Deus Ex" than "Remodeling RPGs for the New Millennium"
Particularly, his "The RPG Commandments" should be retitled "Deus Ex Core Design Principles"; then it's much more palatable...
Overall, the article felt like it lacked focus (felt more like a stream of random thoughts than a coherrent piece) - for example the comment "My intent is not to prescribe -- to tell people what to do" seems bizarre at the top of an article which ends with a set of commandments!
So, I'd largely agree that the article isn't very useful (although it has a few reasonably good points like the one about making sure different weapons are actually different - but this is more a general game design thing than specific to RPGs)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
