Gaming World Forums
Creativity => Game Design & Demos => Topic started by: Mince Wobley on August 22, 2009, 03:33:04 am
-
Can you really play any recent (homemade or professional) rpgs however you want and still get to the end or are they mostly games you can only finish by grinding grinding grinding and then buying better weapons for your character at the next town and that's it, without any role playing. Are you guilty of making your rpg games like that?
-
What is roleplaying to you?
-
The word doesn't really mean what I thought it did so it turns out in most rpgs you roleplay someone grinding and buying better weapons
-
You can grind on this any day of the week, mister.
-
I kinda agree but you can't blame people for that. The engine they use is only capable of making games like those. Not to mention the fact that they only play jrpgs.
-
Excuse my ignorance but what does grinding have to do with role-playing in the first place?
Also, yes. Fallout 3, Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor (although it did take a while to fuse all the right demons), The world ends with you, Chrono Trigger (did my sixth playthrough a few days ago).
But in the end I really don't mind grinding, as long as the battle system is fun (which is is for all those games up there). BTW I also didn't need to grind in Demon Legacy and LotPS though I always bought the best items in every new town.
-
Wait Mince, don't you mean linear/nonlinear gameplay?
-
I think the last RPG I played that actually allowed roleplaying was Fallout 2. It was the last time I remember being able to choose a role for my character and actually play it; you could play through that and never get into a firefight, if you wanted. It didn't take any grinding (which was actually pretty damn hard to do) and offered the players a lot of options in terms of murdering everyone or being guardian of the wastes. One of the biggest problems I had with Fallout 3 was that it all came back to shooting if you wanted to have any fun with it.
I find I roleplay more in strategy games than in RPGs, which is weird. If I'm at the helm of a nation, I try to play that nation as it would be played according to history, way more than I try to play Cloud as a brooding silent protagonist. That was a really shitty example but I hope you get my point!
-
The word doesn't really mean what I thought it did so it turns out in most rpgs you roleplay someone grinding and buying better weapons
You didn't really answer the question though (you know, it would be the part of the post where you elaborate on the phrase "what I thought it means". I mean by virtue that it is a video game you are playing you have to expect number-based game play to be involved. Whether it's the number of currency pieces you need to buy a better weapon, or the number of battles you need to grind through before reaching that next level.
The way I see it, the difference lies in that role-playing works by giving the person playing the role power to shape the world around him as would the character he is playing the role as. And that element simply cannot be captured in a video game where the state the world is in is set absolutely by a computer algorithm. In most RPG's, the player's input is limited, and the control he has over the world only lies in what that player can do in direct relation to whatever task the machine has set in place (which as you so put, usually boils down to whatever the player can do to get his strength to the point needed to save the world or whatever final goal the game has established early on), the only power the developer has is to string together a story that the player has to follow along with using the character given to him. The way the character is already established when written is where the goals and motivation to achieve them come from, rather than by how the person playing the character develops that character and defines his motivations for him. Game developers can work harder to give the player more freedom in that front, and a few successful examples of this exist, but it still boils down to only so many options given for how the player can interact with a static, pre-compiled world through a character that only has the freedom defined only by what the video game developers manually work into him/her.
-
Well, an RPG has you play the role of the character by giving it stats to represent how good that character is at different things (instead of it being based on player skill). So yes, every RPG has role playing, just not the type you're used to thinking of.
-
Wait Mince, don't you mean linear/nonlinear gameplay?
That's exactly what I mean
-
Well, an RPG has you play the role of the character by giving it stats to represent how good that character is at different things (instead of it being based on player skill). So yes, every RPG has role playing, just not the type you're used to thinking of.
What? No. You aren't playing that role, the character is playing that role. That would be like saying watching TV is role playing, since the character you are watching is playing his or her role correctly. All you're doing in most RPGs is moving the guy around, but his stats and dialogue are chosen by the game, so the game is playing the role. I hope that makes sense to you!
In Half-Life 2, for instance, the game forces you through a very linear path, but you're still playing the role of Gordon Freeman. You are given a physics puzzle, and the only way to solve it is to use the gravity gun to move objects around. That's Gordon's defined role, and you are playing through it. You're not really given a choice, but you're filling his shoes.
Most RPGs expect the player to go on adventures and, in that regard, that is the role you are playing: adventurer. That's about as deep as it goes, though. Most CRPGs are different because they allow you to select stats and which type of character you build and how you tackle missions or which adventures you take on. There is a higher level of control in most American games than there is in Japanese games; exceptions naturally exist, but for the most part American RPG designers give the player the ability to control their actions and, ultimately, impact their destiny directly, whereas Japanese RPGs (especially lately) have been becoming less and less interactive stories where you are really just moving the main characters from cutscene to cutscene. Again, you're not playing a role, you're just... flipping pages.
-
In few words:
JRPGs are more of playable soap operas!
W-RPGs are more of Choose-your-Adventure thing.
Indie RPGs that attempted to bring decision-making shiznit:
Alter AILA (the 3 paths, with a final hidden path!)
Iji (2 but almost captain obvious)
-
Yes, but Half-Life 2 isn't an RPG because it doesn't have stats. An RPG doesn't actually have to have ANY role-playing in it in the traditional sense of the word. It just has to have A) Stats and B) a role to play through.
-
Stats are first things to see in RPGs, especially JRPGs, and pen-and-paper RPGs.
Story and branching situations are secondary :{
-
I think console games have muddled the definition of an RPG. Some computer games ARE becoming more open to true roleplaying, but I do not think they will ever achieve RP at its purest; computers at this point can only allow a limited number of "what-if's". A true RPG is more about the infinite possiblities influenced by actors than it is about numbers and stats. Numbers are non-essential, and even totally avoided by many roleplayers. Some gamers have been conditioned into seeing these numbers, and calling them "roleplaying elements" when there really is no RP at all. If you played Super Mario Bros. and the screen told you Mario has 2 HP when he picks up a Mushroom, and 1 HP after he's hit, would you call it an RPG? No, you're still playing a linear side-scroller. Even Final Fantasy is closer to an interactive anime than it is an RPG. I almost always make that distinction, because J-RPGs are a genre all their own. I guess if you loosened the definition, anything from Pac-Man to Michael Jackson's Moonwalker could be considered an RPG, because you're playing a role, but a limited one.
So ultimately, my answer to the OP is little to none. A few games have achieved a good level of roleplay, despite their limitations: Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate, Fallout series, and Elder Scroll series. I know there are more, but I can't really think of them right now.
-
Yes, but Half-Life 2 isn't an RPG because it doesn't have stats. An RPG doesn't actually have to have ANY role-playing in it in the traditional sense of the word. It just has to have A) Stats and B) a role to play through.
That's my point! You are playing a role in HL2, not watching someone else play a role, as is the case with many games that fall into the "RPG" genre.
I think the term "RPG" has lost pretty much all meaning as an acronym and has taken on a new meaning as a term to describe... anything people want it to describe. People say Castlevania has "RPG" elements, when in fact it has pretty much EVERY RPG element. I mean, what makes Castlevania any less of an RPG than, say, Oblivion?
The Castlevanias for DS have:
Stats
Levels
Equipment (Swords, Armor)
Shops
NPCs
Monsters
Spells
Items (Consumables)
Multiple storylines
Multiple player characters
So they are RPGs, no? Except most people think of Castlevania as a platformer, despite this (which it also is!). I am just saying the term "RPG" is dumb since it describes pretty much nothing specific, and certainly role-playing is pretty much the point of any video game. I am playing as Chun Li and my role is to KICK RYU 10000 TIMES!
Yeah. Street Fighter has stats. It's an RPG. Great argument!
-
When the whole RP comes up I tend to go to the Choice & Consequence thing. Proper computer roleplaying is about making choices and those choices having a consequence. (and I mean proper choices and consequences. Not just "kicking will give x amount of damage and punching will give y amount of damage what do I choose?)
-
The engine they use is only capable of making games like those. Not to mention the fact that they only play jrpgs.
Plenty more can be done with this program. People just have to push their imaginations. The idea is use the same program but avoid making a game with common elements. A few ways you can do this.
Design a game that:
- doesn't use weapons.
- the main character is not human-like. Example: You are a cat.
- uses an unexpected character - instead of a warrior you could be an author.
- uses a different kind of collectible. Instead of weapons/armor/mana you can use coins (Mario) or any other object (sticking with your theme).
- doesn't use parties. You can be a lone character.
- is based around another genre. RPGMAKER could easily be used to make a mystery game, murder game, interactive story, etc. The only games it doesn't really tailor too are FPS, Platforms and 3D.
Everyone blames bad games on the programs used to make them. The truth is the programs are fine and the designers are flawed. Either they don't know HOW to make a fun game (most people), they have no imagination (many people), or they are lazy (most people).
-
That's my point! You are playing a role in HL2, not watching someone else play a role, as is the case with many games that fall into the "RPG" genre.
Role playing to me is the ability to play any (or at least more than one) role how you choose. Every game has you playing some role, but most of the time there is one only and there aren't decisions you can make to affect the world, ala half life 2. So trying to take the literal meaning of "role playing game" won't do any good because any game you would label an RPG is very much unlike something like hl2 (excluding a game that mixes genres).
But now rpgs are all stats.
-
So trying to take the literal meaning of "role playing game" won't do any good because any game you would label an RPG is very much unlike something like hl2 (excluding a game that mixes genres).
But now rpgs are all stats.
Yeah, that's my point. People can include any game they want if they expand the definition to encompass them. I think RPGs are more about being able to make choices and have them affect the game's world, but someone way up said something about any game where you play a role is an RPG.
-
I still consider Deus Ex one of the best role playing games I've ever played. Picking a role for your character and playing it was really the only way to really enjoy the game without abusing things like the "save as you walk into a trip laser", "open the menu as you pick a lock/tamper with electronics" , or the "hey, I know how to carry every item in the DE world twice" inventory bugs.
If you're building a bruiser, through stats and equipment, that can go to toe with milbots and smirk like the terminator on a holiday, you probably have too many large weapons in your inventory to pick up too much of the other in-game stuff. Instead of picking locks, you use lams. Instead of bypassing tripwires or stacking crates to hop around on, you either stroll right through and take your lumps, or you...use a lam.
If you're building a complete spy/agent type, you've got a couple of quiet weapons, maybe some emp grenades, a couple thermoptic camos, a stack or two of lockpicks and electronic tools. You probably also have a can of soda or two to throw out and make noise to draw enemies off their patrol routes. Congratulations, you are the Michael Westen of 20XX.
Trying to be a jack of all trades meant you probably had to use more lockpicks and e-tools for each intrusion, and you were just above mediocre in all weapons types instead of standout in one or two.
To me, both DE games did a great job of putting the player into the mind of the main character, letting them decide how to tackle the environments and obstacles before them. When I realized you could detonate onscreen munitions, even through locked cases, in DE2, my game world opened up with new trap opportunities that made me smile. (For an easy kill on JC Denton that is required for one of the DE2 endings, I placed a bunch of ordinance around the target and detonated it with a remote missile.)
Morrowind tried, but you had to cross train heavily by the last third of the game to avoid a few really annoying experiences.
Fallout 2 was great about role-playing, as someone mentioned above. I remember the first time I talked my way through Navarro without a single shot being fired.
I was discussing rpgs with a friend of mine a couple years back. I said "Anymore the only games I really buy are RPGs, because they take longer to beat." and his retort was that "Every video game is a role playing game."
I hadn't really thought of it that way, for some reason, but it is true. In Super Mario, you play the role of a dumpy plumber who has to jump on things, dress up in costumes, saddle baby dinosaurs, and consume mushrooms that are sometimes larger then his entire body. Calling every game ever made a role playing game is just as true as it is an exercise in semantics.
When I play rpgs (taken here to mean the genre that the term is usually applied to instead of the whole of all video games) I usually find myself trying to max out what my characters can do. I'm not thinking "Gee, that meteor could fall out of the sky at any minute, I'd better hurry to the North Crater!", I'm thinking "Hmm, if I limit break eight more times, I can use omni-slash! Lets fight."
I like seeing "rpg elements" working into other "non-rpg" games. I like the idea of customizing the character I play so that it fits my style, but it seems to be an easy out for developers. They can't really make a character that feels distinct enough to warrant a unique play style, so they pass the buck onto the player. In the end, it isn't really about customization, but mainstreaming: grind to the level cap and have all the best stuff - just like everyone else.
I tried a free MMORPG recently, mainly to prepare myself in-case The Old Republic will somehow run on the computer I have when it comes out. In the online setting, role playing is a bit more viable. There are set challenges, and you can link up with other people who specialize however they see fit, to tackle them. Unless you grind endlessly, you won't have the ability to max everything as you go along, so you pick a role/job/class and go with it. In terms of story, you aren't really playing a role (everybody I partied with kept telling me to esc out of the cutscenes when they played), but you are in terms of gameplay.
-
Every game can be considered a game where you play a role, but they can't be considered a Role Playing Game, because RPG has a set definition already when referring to the genre. That is, a game with stats that places you in a role, essentially. Also, stats have to have a greater impact on gameplay than player skill (so it doesn't matter if you get headshots every time if your character can only do 12 damage with rifles, for example).
This is why Half-Life 2 is not an RPG. You may have stats like HP, and guns with different attack scores, but it depends on your own personal skill more than "This gun does +2 damage!".
-
Every game can be considered a game where you play a role, but they can't be considered a Role Playing Game, because RPG has a set definition already when referring to the genre. That is, a game with stats that places you in a role, essentially. Also, stats have to have a greater impact on gameplay than player skill (so it doesn't matter if you get headshots every time if your character can only do 12 damage with rifles, for example).
This is why Half-Life 2 is not an RPG. You may have stats like HP, and guns with different attack scores, but it depends on your own personal skill more than "This gun does +2 damage!".
This. I'd also like to add that the genre is so named because its derived from table top RPG's (obviously). The name is not meant to be taken literally. An RPG is just any game that tests the player based off stats and not actual physical skill, while having quests or some story driven motive or what have you.
-
So in this thread we argue why games with stats such as HP, MP, EXP and allow you to get levels to get stronger and require you to do some grinding in order to get said levels, and usually have more plot than Sonic 1 or SMW and have a lot of similarities to the first videogames from the late 80s that were cloning D&D the best they could with an 8-bit system are called RPGs?
That's like asking why games where you see in first person and shoot people are called FPSs.
EDIT: Vanit beat me to it
-
The name is not meant to be taken literally.
This is a game where you are playing a role... figuratively. I mean, the whole genre has pretty much that one distinction, which most games are completely lacking.
That's like asking why games where you see in first person and shoot people are called FPSs.
It's more like playing Sonic the Hedgehog and calling it a FPS.
-
In few words:
JRPGs are more of playable soap operas!
W-RPGs are more of Choose-your-Adventure thing.
your point is pretty moot sir, do you still live in the 90's and think western RPGs are still like old Lucasarts games?
Mass Effect is more of a soap opera than any of your JRPGs.
Fallout 3 as well.
Listen I don't know if you play much "western rpgs" but it too has a strong values for Storytelling much deeper than any JRPGs.
Don't forget the west pretty much created Role Playing Games. If it wasn't for western nerds sitting in their basement coming up with fantasy concepts playing dungeons and dragons with stats and shit you wouldn't have your Final Fantasy.
-
Listen I don't know if you play much "western rpgs" but it too has a strong values for Storytelling much deeper than any JRPGs.
I have to agree here. I love Final Fantasy, and an assortment of other JRPGs, but all their stories are pretty cookie cutter. The only RPGs to actually move me have been western.
-
I have to agree here. I love Final Fantasy, and an assortment of other JRPGs, but all their stories are pretty cookie cutter. The only RPGs to actually move me have been western.
And on that note it seems JRPG fans have this fucking veil of shit on their face that makes them think that JRPGs are the pinnacle of RPG games, but as you said JRPGs are pretty cookie cutter one after another is released and it gets stagnant, every thing starts to become the same, from the battle systems to the stories, what have you. But I feel western RPGs are released so rarely that each of them has a Unique flavour and each game is special.
I think the only reason why JRPG fans are turned off by Western RPGs is because of the artwork, theyre so accustomed to getting used to seeing spikey hair dudes weilding big swords that they cant look past that to maybe TRY Mass Effect or Fahrenheit, and they are missing alot.
Don't get me wrong I love me some JRPGs, my favorite is Final Fantasy IX. But in terms of game value I definitely pick the western aesthetics of RPG games compared to Japan's, its just so much fresher, and I feel more satisfied in the end.
-
Also, stats have to have a greater impact on gameplay than player skill
Personally, I think there are a few exceptions to this, but it mostly applies to the Action-RPG genre. Using Jade Empire as an example, there's no point having your stats absolutely shed high when your bad at the combat system, otherwise you will get murdered.
Theres also an element of 'player skill is better than stats' in the Mario and Luigi series of Mario games, you can get by with really crappy defense stats if you have good skill at learning and dodging the enemies attacks, you can get by no problem, taking minimal damage.
Personally I prefer playing Western RPGs for their story element, whereas I'll play J-RPGs mostly for the battle systems, as story seems to take a back-seat for it, and I pay little attention and skip it all. Only exception to that recently is probably Persona 4, where I rarely if ever skip the dialogue, as I find the character's likeable and easier to relate to than, for example, Vahn.
-
If you define an "RPG" as being a game that must have roleplaying, I think about 90% at least of all RPGs would need a new genre definition.
I think you should ask yourself, "Sure, I am grinding while reading a story, but is it fun?"
Saying "RPGs are just about stats!" seems a tad silly to me, if you'll forgive my frankness. If that particular genre does not appeal to you, then perhaps you simply need to look elsewhere for entertainment, rather than say "now rpgs are all stats"(1, as I seem to recall this particular sort of series has always had statistics to determine the strengths of your characters, and only rarely ever had various choice options that made a (significant) impact on the storyline.
(1 (is there any rp-ing in rpg's ? - GamingW Forums, consulted August 23 2009, posted by Leafo)
-
I wasn't saying HL2 was an RPG. I was saying that people have made he definition of RPG so broad that you can apply it to anything. My point is that RPGs hardly actually contain any RPing anymore.
Every game can be considered a game where you play a role, but they can't be considered a Role Playing Game, because RPG has a set definition already when referring to the genre. That is, a game with stats that places you in a role, essentially. Also, stats have to have a greater impact on gameplay than player skill (so it doesn't matter if you get headshots every time if your character can only do 12 damage with rifles, for example).
This is why Half-Life 2 is not an RPG. You may have stats like HP, and guns with different attack scores, but it depends on your own personal skill more than "This gun does +2 damage!".
Where did this set definition come from? There are RPGs that rely on skill just as much as stats, there are RPGs that place you in command of a silent protagonist with no pre-set stats, there are RPGs that force you to play as several different characters either in a row or at once (what about FF6? Who was the main character in that? That is one helluva a schizophrenic role playing game, by your definition).
What you are describing is just the bulk (the shitty bulk) of what people usually refer to as RPGs. Fallout 3 was definitely an RPG, but it was also an FPS- Castlevania (the new ones) are definitely RPGs, but they're also clearly platforming games.
The thing that annoys me about what qualities people ascribe to RPGs is that they're barely even quantifiable and have nothing to do with actually playing (as in pushing buttons to make things happen, not sitting and watching dice rolls) the damn game. Every other genre is based on what you do; do you jump around from platform to platform? It's a plaformer. Do you shoot people while looking down the barrel of a gun? It's an FPS. Do you throw the pigskin to your wide receiver? It's a sports game. Do you trek here and there, slaying foes with your mighty sword? It's an adventure game. Literally all of these genres can have RPG elements attached to them without being cross-genre games (as is, to use it as an example again, HL2, which is both an FPS and a Platformer).
Most people define games as RPGs when there isn't actually anything else to do in the game. Maybe a better definition of RPG is just a Menu-Based Game. Or Statistics-Based Game. :fogetmmh:
Just so everyone is clear, I play RPGs all the time! I grew up on them and I love them, but trying to define them is ridiculous. This topic is about actual role-playing in RPGs, which I say there is very little of (or very little more than in every other genre).
-
Well. Silent protagonist with no preset stats = you give him stats, which then restrict him to his role.
FF6 = all the characters have stats that restrict them to their role.
Fallout 3 = Action RPG or FPS with RPG elements
Castlevania = RPG (Only played a little bit of one but it relied heavily on stats. Level 1 = 10 damage per hit, Level 2 = 12 damage per hit kinda stuff)
Look up the definition of RPG on I think wikipedia has it and you will see where I get my definition. Also my game design courses. of course... if I'm wrong...
-
the only thing i really have to say about this is that the role-playing genre has a single major contribution to the rest of the gaming medium: in-depth stat-based customization. i wouldn't be at all surprised if the rpg genre gave its gift and then died only to be overtaken by genres that are more action-based.
FF6 = all the characters have stats that restrict them to their role.
actually, if you look into ff6's programming you'll be amazed at how much the algorithms depend on the character's current level, so the immutable stats (i guess you could call them that) don't really matter as much
-
Like I said, there's really only a few video games with true roleplaying elements in them, and here's why:
Fallout series: the Karma system allowed you to play the spectrum of good to evil; the SPECIAL system allowed you to set base stats; a few other nuances, like playing a drug addict, a Slaver, or Brotherhood member.
Elder Scrolls series: pretty much same thing as Fallout, with your own customized class and Good-Evil system; the choice to be a member of 3 guilds; the Dark Brotherhood option; the Vampire option; the choice to affiliate with Daedra or the traditional gods.
Planescape: once again, customized character; you have the ability to play not only good-evil, but lawful-chaotic. Lying, cheating, and stealing can be done for a greater good. There's an ungodly number of ways to go about anything, even in the way you try to talk your way in/out of things.
I know there are more, but you get the idea. You can play each game multiple times and get a completely different experience. You can end it like a champion of good, or like a complete asshole. You can be a bruiser or use magic or finesse. Sure, you can exploit the system and do everything, but when I play, I usually have a role with limitations in mind so I get some small semblance of roleplaying. The thing with the FF series, and related games, is that you really don't get that choice. You're Terra/Cloud/Crono and you're only as much of a badass as your level, and you're gonna say/do the same things pretty much everytime. That's pretty much the opposite of roleplaying.
-
Well. Silent protagonist with no preset stats = you give him stats, which then restrict him to his role.
FF6 = all the characters have stats that restrict them to their role.
Fallout 3 = Action RPG or FPS with RPG elements
Firstly, you could easily change the way characters grew (their stats) based on which espers they had equipped when they levelled up. Plus, pretty much every character in that game (except maybe Relm and Strago) were really well-rounded and could inflict damage/use magic/take some hits as well as any other character, so it was up to you which characters you used. Plus, certain dialogues would be different based on who you had in your party (some not appearing at all), and it was unnecessary to play as all the characters/do everything. I would say, as far as character-driven story options go, Final Fantasy 6 was the most "RP"esque of all the Final Fantasies.
Also, many RPGs don't have main characters, they have a cast of equally important characters. Are you playing the role of all of them at once, or as a team? Because one way I'd argue is more "RP"esque than the other.
Secondly, I would never call Fallout 3 an FPS with RPG elements. An RPG with FPS elements, maybe, but calling that game anything but an RPG would be laughably missing the mark. Everything you do is based on earning experience and leveling up; and unlike Fallout 2, where you level up by just playing through the game's many interesting scenarios, Fallout 3 has you running around searching for Molerats to kill to harvest their precious grind-worthy experience. Stupid Bethesda.
edit: man these posts make me sound like a pompous rpg knowitall but I don't care!!!
-
I'd say that what i look for in a console RPG is different than what i look for in Pen-and-paper/message board. They're different animals, if you'll excuse my phrasing.
When I do pen-and paper/ message board RPing I use as mu8ch freedom as possible. When I go for a console game I usually prefer that each character have their own quirks and personality, like I was reading a good novel, though i DO prefer flexibility if possible. I I grew up on FF/IV/VI and Chrono Trigger, among others, and I tend to like my "Traveling companions" as well-rounded as possible.
-
In my opinion, a true RPG is designed so that the character you create in your mind can do pretty much what you would expect that character to do within the game universe. If I create a gunslinging broad in FO3, I will sufficiently be immersed in that character until somethings forces me to break "character" - ie. If I wanted her to be bad, I feel that if I am forced to do a goody-goody quest then my experience breaks a little immersion, and I feel less like I'm playing the role of who I want, and more the role of who the designers want.
Essentially, in my opinion, I believe a true "RPG" is a difficult thing to come by other than in the PnP world. Because the designers will always want to tell a story, true immersion will never be reached. That being said, i dont necessarily mean that most RPGs are bad, no no, sometimes the defined story can play like a good book reads. It just won't be the book I wrote in my head.
-
In my opinion, a true RPG is designed so that the character you create in your mind can do pretty much what you would expect that character to do within the game universe. If I create a gunslinging broad in FO3, I will sufficiently be immersed in that character until somethings forces me to break "character" - ie. If I wanted her to be bad, I feel that if I am forced to do a goody-goody quest then my experience breaks a little immersion, and I feel less like I'm playing the role of who I want, and more the role of who the designers want.
This is what irks me about Oblivion and FO3. I can be a hard-ass baby killer, but at the end of the day I have to save the whole world. What can you do... :welp:
-
I just had an idea for a game:
It would be an RPG not unlike Oblivion or Fallout series, with the Planescape double axis alignment system. Whichever path you go, there is an active doppleganger-like character of the exact opposite alignment in the world who you learn about from clues and conversations. You'd ultimately encounter him several times, hindering your goals toward some arbitrary main quest. Maybe if a player decided to go totally Neutral/Neutral, the game would be maintaining that difficult balance until you can befriend him and reach a catharsis of sorts. The ending could be kind of open to interpretation. Maybe your nemesis is a conflicting character in your head or some crazy shit like that.
-
uh.
i didn't expect this but that is actually a really good idea for the traditional alignment system evangel (if it's done right). it even kind of JUSTIFIES the system in the same go.
i think the problem however is that it will be propably pretty shallowly implemented, judging the modern rpgs, so w/e :welp:
-
I was thinking of that as well. A professional game company could probably pull off a decent dynamic system where you play as a free man. If I was to make it, I'd probably have to resort to 4 distinct factions or races who act in a distinct manner (Chaotic-Evil to Lawful-Good, throwing out the Neutral status), with a definite opposition for each "game". You'd pretty much choose your path from the start.
That could be interesting because one could implement 4 different difficulties per game. The "Beginners" game could be played Chaotic-Good, in which you'd be pitted against Lawful-Evil. Each further setting could implement a different and more complex strategy as you play a different faction or race, all within the same world.
If I get some more ideas and free time, I'd really like to write a plot out for this.
-
well i mean my point was that the traditional system (dividing into good-bad lawful-chaotic) pretty much sucks most of the time since it's never really implemented well (baldur's gate, iwd = DIALOGUE AND ALIGNMENT DOES NOT MEET (shallowly at times); NWN = sucks balls in every possible way, gets even worse in NWN2!) but that kind of EXACTLY OPPOSITE CHARACTER thing could work in the context since it gives you a clear something to compare yourself to. welp basically EVEN THE PROFESSIONAL GAMES SUCK WITH THIS.
but a problem: most of the time the players choose the middle-of-the-road options which is why most of the people don't really play their e.g. lawful characters like they should since the dialogue options even allow different thoughts. ofc you can put such at good crossroads to allow paladin to become FALLEN PALADIN and such but really, this is all quite a lot of work for developers so it's not suprising that no-one has bothered to do this properly!
what is, however, more condemnable is that most of the time the dialogue options favour good choices or more exactly, PRAGMATIC or LOGICAL CHOICES. what i mean is that a player can pick the good side from the beginning and then in the middle of the quest be CHAOTIC/opportunist and steal lots of stuff from the good people without consiquences.
nah this is a bad example. in short, the player can kind of irrationally do MULTIPLE ALIGNMENT CHOICES in one quest and a lot of times without consiquences to much anything. or pick-pocket the quest award beforehand.and this is usually the best-case scenario! this only kind of works in fallout since it doesn't have set alignments (which further proves that MY FRIEND EVANGEL, SET ALIGNMENTS SUCKS) and even in that game limitedly.
the fantasy rpg's are especially inclined to have best-case scenarios where the good or rather THE INNOCENT gets to live, the bad gets fooled, you earn more gold (jesus PERSUADE IN NWN) and possibly opens up more quests or the town turns more friendly, that sort of thing.
--
so to close my post, most of players don't bother with playing their alignments so if you really really want to implement set ones they should affect the dialogue and your character from the very beginning of the game. i don't really see another choice if you want to have one properly! and ridicilously/ironicly i think the people will go all ":_(" over this kind of SET PERSONALITY things (which means i guess that players should in that case pick neutral alignment. i don't know. i really don't care!!).
suggestion: either remove the traditional alignment system or add colours to it such as Neutral, Pragmatist (which yields the best results) or neutral, opportunist actually fuck that, just have different kinds of possible of PERSONALITIES to choose from and perhaps have a max amount for them. pragmatist, opportunist, urgh EMPHATIC, hermit, whatever. these will shape the dialogue and thus the character to some extent.
-
let this be the last time i post in gd
I was thinking of that as well. A professional game company could probably pull off a decent dynamic system where you play as a free man. If I was to make it, I'd probably have to resort to 4 distinct factions or races who act in a distinct manner (Chaotic-Evil to Lawful-Good, throwing out the Neutral status), with a definite opposition for each "game". You'd pretty much choose your path from the start.
That could be interesting because one could implement 4 different difficulties per game. The "Beginners" game could be played Chaotic-Good, in which you'd be pitted against Lawful-Evil. Each further setting could implement a different and more complex strategy as you play a different faction or race, all within the same world.
If I get some more ideas and free time, I'd really like to write a plot out for this.
yeah. to make the alignments work you could have some set personalities (which kind of renders CHAOTIC or LAWFUL, that sort of titles kind of useless) i suppose. chaotic good is a beginner one since people usually are pragmatic (the best for my character) but uh kind ( me not want sadness :_( me want happy ending!!!! ).
well this brings up the problem of WHY NOT HAVE REAL PLAYABLE CHARACTER THEN. well ok. i guess you can have a colourful character which choices you can control to some extent (barkley!). it might work! i really liked how it worked in barkley (and apparently there is such in Mass Effect too but i haven't played it) let player choose the rest eg. stats, class, appearance themselves and i guess that's it.
also as you can see i didn't bother much to shape my thougths/grammar or anything. sorry Evengel! have fun in a swamp! :welp:
-
also as you can see i didn't bother much to shape my thougths/grammar or anything. sorry Evengel! have fun in a swamp! :welp:
Some good points there, nonetheless.
I can't remember which game employed this, but you could only increase/decrease your alignment by degrees. A neutral guy could commit petty evils, but not really bad things until he had built up his evil alignment. That way, you couldn't flip flop around, doing whatever provides the most exp.
For this hypothetical game, I think the best route would allow the player to pursue all quests within his alignment, plus some quests which are just a few degrees from that alignment. A Chaotic-Good character would have no problem stealing from any Evil character. However, there could also be small-time Lawful-Good or Chaotic-Evil quests that kind of blur the line, but provide fewer rewards.
I've been trying to think of a good setting for this to work in. Right now, I'm thinking two rival nations, one "Good", one "Evil" (of course, this won't be said, but implied), who are struggling for power and dominance. This is where the arbitrary main goal comes into play, maybe a struggle over a generic magic item, piece of land, basically a MacGuffin. Each nation has their own Lawful government, who are in direct opposition to one another. However, each nation is home to a subversive Chaotic faction, which fights to overturn the rule of law. This is where gameplay differs for each of the 4 sides. As a member of the Lawful government, you'd primarily be fighting anything Evil, but you are willing to do things to oppress the Lawful faction. As a faction member, one can maybe get mercenary jobs from your own government, to fight the Evil government, but one could also take sides occasionally with the Evil faction, in the interest of toppling any form of government.
This could add a level of strategy in which you're doing a balancing act (playing one side against the other to your own end), but in the end you're trying to secure the "MacGuffin" for yourself.
I hope this makes sense!
-
I can't remember which game employed this, but you could only increase/decrease your alignment by degrees. A neutral guy could commit petty evils, but not really bad things until he had built up his evil alignment. That way, you couldn't flip flop around, doing whatever provides the most exp.
maybe it's not it but that sounds like NWN pretty much. POINTS IN ALIGNMENT, that sort of thing. get enough chaotic points and welp, you shift in alignment. add clear consiquences on top of this (THIS option adds x amount of chaotic etc + treasure/exprience rewards) and you have a pretty bad system. nobody cares about character's personality ever in this game. it got lot worse in NWN2/NWN expansions when certain specific classes required specific alignments.
For this hypothetical game, I think the best route would allow the player to pursue all quests within his alignment, plus some quests which are just a few degrees from that alignment. A Chaotic-Good character would have no problem stealing from any Evil character. However, there could also be small-time Lawful-Good or Chaotic-Evil quests that kind of blur the line, but provide fewer rewards.
Right now, I'm thinking two rival nations, one "Good", one "Evil" (of course, this won't be said, but implied), who are struggling for power and dominance. This is where the arbitrary main goal comes into play, maybe a struggle over a generic magic item, piece of land, basically a MacGuffin.
Each nation has their own Lawful government, who are in direct opposition to one another. However, each nation is home to a subversive Chaotic faction, which fights to overturn the rule of law. This is where gameplay differs for each of the 4 sides. As a member of the Lawful government, you'd primarily be fighting anything Evil, but you are willing to do things to oppress the Lawful faction. As a faction member, one can maybe get mercenary jobs from your own government, to fight the Evil government, but one could also take sides occasionally with the Evil faction, in the interest of toppling any form of government.
This could add a level of strategy in which you're doing a balancing act (playing one side against the other to your own end), but in the end you're trying to secure the "MacGuffin" for yourself.
I hope this makes sense!
yeah it makes sense. well, no offence but your story's premise shoots itself pretty badly in the leg considering the alignment. why would you even need any alignments if your only goal is to achieve the MacGuffin yourself? me not understand. i mean this game's idea doesn't even need alignments, it's about player topping everybody else! also the premise sounds kind of what Fallout series always had minus the final goal in the game.
actually nothing of these don't really matter. like i said, alignments blow... Deal With It! :fogetangry:
-
What is roleplaying to you?
Dressing up as princess peac......No wait you mean the other roleplying. Oooooopppps. My bad.
Anygame where you play a role that drags you into the game really.