Thirith on 27/12/2008 at 14:59
Quote Posted by Papy
I partially agree (depending on how you view the relationship between the artist and his audience), but the act of giving me a pen and a blank sheet of paper, so I can write my own story, is not "Art". A linear and heavily scripted game like BioShock has potential to be artistic (and it almost was from my point of view, the most important problem was the artistic elements were too diluted), but a game like Oblivion has absolutely no chance of succeeding as art. Somehow, the artist must understand his own creation. Any freedom he gives to the player must be controlled. Art is not something emergent, it does not happen by accident or by chance, it must created voluntarily.
I agree with this if you're talking about games as a narrative artform. Game critics have made the argument that non-narrative games have artistic potential that goes beyond telling a story, presenting characters etc., and that this artistry comes from the game's interaction. I haven't read enough such criticism to make a strong case for it, nor am I necessarily terribly interested in these games (whether as art or as games), but I wouldn't deny their artistic potential completely.
BlackCapedManX on 27/12/2008 at 22:28
Quote Posted by Papy
The first one is computer games' NPC cannot have real personalities nor interesting reactions due to technical limitations. There is no AI and even less artificial psychological profiles. The best you can have is one scripted event or another, nothing more. The second problem is your range of action in video games is extremely limited. Basically, you can't speak. So what's the point in your form of role playing since you can't role play?
Because I find the scripted interactions to be interesting. The success of a game like DX is that the devs put such a phenomenal degree of variety into those scripted responses that you can access a very wide range of responses even in a very limited world environment.
Quote Posted by Papy
Let's be honest, your role playing choices just don't matter on the game world. They can change the action gameplay because of different attribute (whether limited by the game system or by yourself), but there is nothing interesting to see from NPC. There is no countryside to look at. Tell me... With a game like Oblivion, what does it change if you play a thief or a magic user?
I guess I should be very clear in how I approach games. A game like DX is inherently going to be somewhat limited on the social NPC interaction side, I admit there's nothing I can do about that. But I have a stupendously overactive imagination (hence why I actually am an artist,) and DX satiates my need in this respect. So my role playing consists of more how I deal with hostile NPCs. Whether I get up in their face and have a gun fight, take them out silently or at range, or work my way up into rafters above their head so I can fall out of the shadows and kill them by landing on their shoulders (which I imagine as crushing their spine, because that's how I think) then driving a crowbar into their skull, in a maneuver worthy of a Tenchu game, all of these different approaches are each interesting and fun for me to play. Even though they functionally all merely manage to kill an opponent, It's the actual approach, rather than the outcome, that is why I play. Why does it matter if I play a thief or a mage in TES (my preference is Morrowind, because it is a lot less limited than Oblivion)? Because it's the role
I play, and not my interest in how the game reacts that is interesting to me. I think this is widely the case, or they wouldn't have such a range of only subtly different classes (spellsword, to alchemist, to battlemage, for instance.) Most people (who play games like this) accept that games can't predict all of their actions and act accordingly, and are content to fill in the missing content with their own imagination, so to speak.
Quote Posted by Papy
Finally, I'd just like to remind you two things. First, Deus Ex was a linear game and it was designed that way. As far as the world and the story was concerned, your choices just didn't matter, except for some somewhat insignificant dialogs here and there. The idea to role play with Deus Ex in order to see your impact on the story or NPC is pointless. Second, about everyone consider IW as a worse game than DX, even though it gave more "role playing" choices to the player. Are you sure "role playing" is what people liked with Deus Ex?
1.) Again, I don't role-play to see how it affects the environment, I do it for the actual act of doing one thing versus something else, that this is inherently interesting to me is the fundamental difference in our viewpoints. I.E. In Quake I can shoot at enemies to kill them, that's about it. I find that dull. That I have choices in DX in how to deal with enemies, to be a subtle or dramatic as possible, and to try each of those choices, is the reason why I am interested in DX (and conversely pretty bored with Quake.)
2.) You're not making a proper cause-effect correlation. No one said IW was bad because it had more social role-playing options, it was bad for a wide range of other things that it decided not to implement. Not the least of which was axing the skill system, which was a major portion of the
combat role-playing in DX. Because you couldn't as effectively craft a character to the role you wanted to put it in, mostly people found IW severely lacking compared to DX. Let me emphasize that "combat role-playing" isn't merely how you kill your enemy (which is why I don't particularly like games like D&D), but to a great extent how you deal with potential combat scenarios. Running and hiding is one possible way, frugal "kill only as necessary" is another approach, and absolute bloodbath is another (this list can be extrapolated indefinitely, from laying traps to killing allies for their weapons to reprogramming defenses...) that these are all viable in DX is what makes it interesting. That the game actually acknowledges some of these decisions is even more interesting. To me, at least.
heywood on 28/12/2008 at 18:04
Finally getting back to this thread...
Part of my point was that designing levels to be equally balanced for all character types makes them feel artificial, less believable, less immersive. And it also makes you feel like your build doesn't matter.
The other point I wanted to make is that you don't *need* to design in separate paths for each character type in order to make an RPG enjoyable and re-playable. Let's take SS2 as an example. The levels in SS2 don't have alternate paths to the same objective designed for different character builds. Yet the game is very replayable. That's because the challenges are entirely different depending on your character, even if the path through the levels is the same.
Here's another way to think about it: Incorporating non-linear level design with alternate paths to the same objective provides a dimension of choice for the player to explore. An RPG-style character build system also adds a dimension of choice for the player to explore. When you combine them in the same game, ideally the effect should be multiplicative. In other words, the two degrees of freedom should be at least somewhat independent. But when the alternate paths are specialized and calibrated specifically for each character type, the choice effectively becomes one-dimensional again.
There were some levels in DX where the alternate paths felt too contrived (ie. too many ventilation ducts). However, the game as a whole didn't feel like it was trying to funnel you into playing one of two different characters. It was more open ended than that. For example, the rooftop approach to the NSF generator requires the most combat, but it's stealthy combat designed for a sniper. In contrast, the direct approach at the naval base is designed for grenades and heavy weapons. And there are areas which will reward particular skills like hacking and swimming. So depending on how you invested in skills and augs, the easiest path could be to shoot everybody on one level and then sneak around scrounging for multitools so you can take the sewers through the next.
In comparison, the level design in IW always seemed to have the same two paths: corridors vs. ventilation ducts. And facing the exact same gameplay choice in every level gets old.
One final point - adding choice for choice's sake can make a game feel whimsical. My primary complaint with Bethesda RPGs is that there are too many character development choices with too little significance. Combined with the way NPCs level up and it feels like character development doesn't matter. And the dialogue is almost insultingly shallow.
Silkworm on 1/1/2009 at 18:29
You just spent 4 paragraphs beating up on a strawman. I don't think a single one of us is arguing that RPG's should make level design tailored to every possible character build, with separate paths for every build. What you and Papy don't understand is the definition of "balanced", which most of us mean in the gameplay fine tuning sense of fairness (ie to take the most extremely simple example rock-paper-scissors, an equal spread of strengths and weaknesses). As great a game SS2 is, the psi-user class is clearly unbalanced in this definition of the world, and that is one flaw Deus Ex doesn't have.
Character classes are for deciding how you want to play the RPG, difficultly levels are for deciding how difficult you want the experience to be - developers should never confuse the two. Choice of character build should NOT be part of beating the game, because then it's no longer an RPG at all.
Ostriig on 2/1/2009 at 00:51
Ok, looks like there's some stuff that's popped up over the winter holidays. I'm probably gonna miss stuff, still a bit battered after last night.
Quote Posted by Papy
Oh... so when you talked about "personal expression", you meant personal expression of the team making the game (including focus groups)? So I'd like to know how can a developer really express himself if the game mechanic is really about letting the player express himself?
Um, hold on a sec, no. It's pretty much what Toxicfluff said "Through the choices given to the player, the way the choices are presented, the repercussions and the world in which they.. err.. repercuss." Just because the player is given
some freedom to express their own options and opinions, does not mean that it has to be in any way outside what the devs had envisioned for their product. The point is to give choice within a constrained environment, with all consequences conducive to the single message (or parts of it) that the author is trying to get across, but in a different manner. Thus, while the "game" still presents the one message it was meant to, the audience has had direct involvement in its delivery, and that would, ideally, make them further relate to said message and therefore emphasize its points. To give a
very simple example, imagine a game that presents you with the choice of either killing or not killing a child (all similarities to existing titles unintentional). If the player chooses to kill the child, they are given a bad follow-up, they are symbolically or technically reprimanded, if they choose not to kill the kid, taking a stance against such gesture, they are somehow rewarded. Technically, regardless of the chosen path, the emerging idea is that "killing children is bad", but the way it is delivered can go one way or another, and this reflects on the player by making the conclusion of the situation, to some extent, "their own". Once again, this is a very simple analogy to illustrate how the concept would work, nothing more. In practice, this can take a much more complex and meaningful form. Of course that at the end of the day, it is a limited and, to some degree, artificial choice, but there are limitations present to any artistic medium that must be accepted and overlooked. Suspension of disbelief is a must for any form of narrative entertainment.
Also, this ties in with something you said in a later post, so I'll snip it in here.
Quote:
Any freedom he gives to the player must be controlled. Art is not something emergent, it does not happen by accident or by chance, it must created voluntarily.
Finally something we agree on in this subject. I also don't see emergent gameplay as, through itself, conducive to a compelling narrative. It can be great fun, and a wonderful gameplay design concept, but for a strong, engrossing narrative, you need some scripted, plot-related bottlenecks. The less obvious they are, the better, but they have to be there.
Quote:
The medium has probably a lot of potential, but for now it's just that : potential.
Oh, that's quite true. Some attempts have been made, but we've still got a ways to go. I don't think anyone here has claimed that the gaming industry's Shawshank Redemption has popped up yet. But the issue with this side-topic was the medium's artistic potential and the way that player choice is vital to it.
Quote:
That was a sarcastic comment. It is illogical to think a game which is really just a tool to let the player "express" himself is about art. A developer could still cram some of his ideas into this tool, but this will always fail as art. Either the developers speak, or the player speak. Trying to make a compromise is a very bad idea for art.
I hope that, given the above clarifications, it's now clear where your assumptions about what I was saying were wrong, and how the above paragraph is off.
Papy on 2/1/2009 at 02:11
Quote Posted by Thirith
Game critics have made the argument that non-narrative games have artistic potential that goes beyond telling a story, presenting characters etc., and that this artistry comes from the game's interaction.
I wanted to respond to this but I'm not sure I understand what you mean with "non-narrative". For example, a game like "The Marriage" can certainly be viewed as a narrative game. The presentation of the "story" is abstract, but it is still there. (BTW, I think "The Marriage" is way overrated)
Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX
But I have a stupendously overactive imagination
Yes, that's pretty much obvious (this is not an insult). You basically play with a computer RPG like you would play with a Barbie or a G.I. Joe (again, this is not insult, I'm not condescending and I don't think "Barbie lol", as Ostriig said). Although I'm not interested in that kind of "role playing" with a video game, I'd prefer to take a blank sheet of paper and write my own short story, I won't deny this kind of gameplay exist.
Having said that, I will differ with you on two points. First, this gameplay means to me the software is closer to being a "toy" than being a "game". Second, as I already said, this kind of role playing is not the only kind of role playing. You use the argument that "most people" is on your side, but I'm not so sure and, to be honest, I really don't care what "most people" think. To me, being myself but with different abilities and in a different situation is also role playing.
Quote Posted by heywood
My primary complaint with Bethesda RPGs is that [...] the dialogue is almost insultingly shallow.
What do you mean with "almost"?
Quote Posted by Silkworm
Choice of character build should NOT be part of beating the game, because then it's no longer an RPG at all.
So how do you call games where your choices of where you invest your skill points matter to the outcome of the situation?
Anyway I can hypothesize our difference of vision may be due to a cultural difference. I grew up playing "RPG" like Ultima, Bard's Tale or Wizard's Crown, where choosing a good party was essential to being able to finish the game. Even if I wanted to have 6 magic-users, I knew this would mean failure so that's not what I did. Even if I wanted a party made of intelligent fighters and strong magic-users (instead of usual strong fighters and intelligent magic-users), I knew this would mean failure so that's not what I did. Even if I wanted my magic-users to specialized in only one school of spell casting because that's how I felt like, I knew I had to somewhat sacrifice that idea and widen my abilities and be able to face whatever the world was throwing at me. Basically, I grew up thinking an RPG was about me in a world instead of about only me.
BTW, if you want to play the semantics game, I'd say something like Oblivion was more of an "acting toy" than a "role playing game". At least its value as an acting toy is much better than its value as a role playing game.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
I hope that, given the above clarifications, it's now clear where your assumptions about what I was saying were wrong, and how the above paragraph is off.
Yes, it's clearer. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.
DaBeast on 2/1/2009 at 10:23
Quote Posted by Papy
So how do you call games where your choices of where you invest your skill points matter to the outcome of the situation?
I could be wrong, but I think his point was that regardless of what you put points in if that option is even available, the game difficulty was based on which class of character you chose to play. Maybe you put points in dumb things but thats a different matter.
In Killzone you can play as a standard dude, the game is reasonably difficult. You can play as the stealthy chick (which was utterly pointless) which is a bit harder or you can play as the big tank dude with the minigun, which is easy.
You can choose which character you want to play a level with, should that choice alter the difficulty or should that choice change which paths are open to you? In Killzone's case it was a bit of both, but generally worthless.
Killzone isn't an RPG ofcourse, but its just there for example of weak, imo, balancing. If I could put points in stuff it wouldn't alter the fact that difficulty changed based on character choice and not my personal choice of upgrades.
Now, if you are playing an RPG, and calling Oblivion anything other than an RPG is just silly, you chose a class you wish to play to suit your playstyle. If you choose a stealthy thief for example, should the game punish you for that choice by throwing a ton of enemies in broad daylight at you? No ofc not, the game should be balanced for various playstyles. Maybe theres alot of darkness in main quests for you to sneak past or get behind a target for some backstabbing or w/e.
Besides that, Deus Ex and SS2 are action/RPG's. Party systems etc have little relevance to it.
Ostriig on 2/1/2009 at 15:14
Quote Posted by Papy
Yes, it's clearer. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.
No worries. Internet, communication can go wrong on either side of the barricade.
Quote:
So how do you call games where your choices of where you invest your skill points matter to the outcome of the situation?
I don't think what you said here contradicts what Silkworm said. Sure, at times, one pathway may shine above another, but the point is that any offered class should, overall, demand roughly the same amount of effort from the player in order to master and be used to complete a game. Different pathways or classes amount to a different approach to the game, not to a different difficulty setting.
For instance, ideally, in NWN you should be able to complete the game with either a Paladin or a Rogue just as easily, overall. At some points, it may be harder for the Paladin, at others, for the Rogue, but in the end, when it's all summed up, both classes should demand the same amount of time and effort from players to perfect themselves at using that specific class that they chose. What should not happen is that playing a Rogue is consistently and significantly easier than playing a Paladin at all times, despite the player being equally apt at both classes' stat trees. This does not mean that point distribution as an RPG mechanic ceases to matter - it's natural that the game would become very difficult if the player chose to invest in stealth skills while playing as a Paladin, but that's not an instance of the classes being imbalanced, it's an issue of the player being bad at that class.
Quote Posted by Papy
BTW, if you want to play the semantics game, I'd say something like Oblivion was more of an "acting toy" than a "role playing game". At least its value as an acting toy is much better than its value as a role playing game.
Quote Posted by DaBeast
Now, if you are playing an RPG, and calling Oblivion anything other than an RPG is just silly, you chose a class you wish to play to suit your playstyle.
Maybe we could all come to a compromise and call Oblivion a "bad RPG"? I like it as... something else, more of an action game, and I'm still playing it, but it's for the mods and the free, open world, not for the crummy character progression or the God-awful plot(s). And, normally, that's what I see as highly significant RPG elements.
DaBeast on 3/1/2009 at 08:09
It's been argued in the past, mainly by me, that a role playing game involves the user playing the role of a character (duh). For the hardcore, its more than just being presented with choices that alter the outcome of the game, no matter how deep those threads go. For the hardcore it must have stats.
I hadn't stated my thoughts clearly enough, but anyway, a role playing game typically involves character progression. My argument way back was that I was tired of RPG's pulling me out of immersion by having a ton of spreadsheet stats etc. Its more obvious with the classic point & click rpg. You kill a bunch of stuff, get xp then upgrade. It becomes so formulaic, so calculated that there is little room for me to feel like I'm doing anything other than a more complicated puzzle.
I felt that these days a developer could try something new, it seems IG/2kBoston gave it a go with Bioshock, I've yet to play it but ofc it was received with mixed opinion as sticklers for the traditional RPG will demand stats, experience points etc.
So, Oblivion is an RPG, it must be as it contains the above mentioned stuff. It might be a bit weak in story but it is ofc an RPG regardless of how streamlined anyone thinks it might be. It certainly isn't an Immersion Sim like thief and Stalker. I suppose bioshock would be better classed as an immersion sim, but I'll wait til I've played it before judging it completely.
edit: Yea, I'd accept "bad RPG", as an opinion though. I liked it to a point but the main plot became incredibly tedious and devoid of imagination. I think the put alot more effort into side quests though, much more than simply "Kill x and bring y here" as with Morrowind
Sorry if all that is a pile of guff.
Papy on 3/1/2009 at 08:59
Quote Posted by DaBeast
I could be wrong, but I think his point was that regardless of what you put points in if that option is even available, the game difficulty was based on which class of character you chose to play. Maybe you put points in dumb things but thats a different matter.
In that sense, I agree. I did say in a previous post in this thread that "I expect every choice I have at the start of the game to be viable". The thing is I already had a similar conversation before and the general trend was : a role playing game should not "punish" the player for developing any skill in particular in any way.
Here's a question : Suppose I decide to roleplay an intelligent, but weak, fighter. What I mean is I will choose a fighter class and put a lot of skill points in intelligence, but almost none in strength. Now, suppose that because of my choice, the game becomes almost unplayable. Would you say this is a flaw? Ostriig said that this is not an issue with the game but rather with the player being bad with that class. Would you agree?
Quote Posted by DaBeast
Now, if you are playing an RPG, and calling Oblivion anything other than an RPG is just silly, you chose a class you wish to play to suit your playstyle.
The problem with the term "RPG" is that, it is a very broad category. Baldur's Gate, Ultima Underworld and even Diablo and Zelda were all called RPG. So of course Oblivion is an RPG, but that does not say much about its gameplay.
I somewhat agree with your thought on RPG but I will add one thing : an RPG must also have a universe that does make at least a bit of sense, even if the world and NPC interactions are very limited. That's where Oblivion fail. Everything is disconnected. I don't view Oblivion's quests as elements of a bigger world I slowly discover, I view them as a series of mini-games, each well separated.
Before I continue, I have three questions about semantics and the English language because I feel I don't know enough to communicate efficiently. First, do "role playing" and "playing a role" have the same meaning? Second, is there a difference between "acting" and "role playing"? Third, what is the difference between a "game" and a "toy"?
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Maybe we could all come to a compromise and call Oblivion a "bad RPG"? I like it as... something else
Oh, I will gladly agree with this, but... will BlackCapedManX do? ;)
