Darth Rosenberg said:
...heh, would I even consider Witcher an RPG by my definition? Maybe not. ;-) I've always found Geralt a complete bore, so his fixed perspective's never really been something I've enjoyed (I've still not played TW3 as I've always wanted to do another run of 2 before it, and so playing one very large game just to set up another large game is an undertaking I've not had time or inclination to do).
Bethesda are rightly well known for it, though, given whilst CDPR are newcomers to it Bethesda have been doing it for generations.
Yeah, I know the feeling with the Witcher. While I love the games, they take a while to get through, as an understatement, and I often end up taking breaks halfway through.
But, Witcher was just an example. Older games like Ultima, or Gothic, also classify. Bethesda is the modern day's most well known though I will admit.
I agree I can't lay claim to any objective points about what precisely makes an RPG and what doesn't - it is, ultimately, subjective. I reject the term sandbox being applied to a TES (or even a contemporary Fallout), though, mostly because I feel it's a lazy, clumsy, and misleading term that doesn't suit anything but, say, Minecraft or perhaps action oriented games like Saints Row (here's a game area - cause mayhem. in an open-world RPG the 'doing' that matters can simply be which direction you walk, or why).
Eh, while I can respect that, sandbox is the phrase used to denote games where the player is given control over their experience and essentially told to make their own fun. You're given a 'sandbox' to play around in, and there might be some guidance, but ultimately its up to you what happens in the game. As opposed to more story driven games, where the player may have some agency, but is confined to and pushed along through the story for all meaningful interactions.
I do agree the genres we have in gaming are... Kinda shit at explaining what a game is though. You don't really know anything about a game from its genre label alone, which kind of defeats the entire point.
It does depend, but I'd argue that example reflects an abject failure of imagination on the player's part - and imagination and projection is surely a defining characteristic of role-playing.
Do you concede, at least, the term has been watered down almost to the point of meaninglessness? What game these days doesn't have lite-RPG elements?
I don't understand the 'hot elf ranger' reference, though, unless you're just referring to a [variously sexist/reductive] trope?
Imagination and projection are two different things though, and very vague as well. Someone might have an amazing imagination for worlds and characters and events, while another might come up with amazing schemes, and have the sort of mind that can describe those scenes to anyone and make it sound like their idea. Its honestly not uncommon for people, even imaginative authors, to come up with characters, but not really understand what makes them tick. Its also not uncommon for there to be people who couldn't conjure a backstory out of nowhere, but can fundamentally understand someone else if told their personality and backstory. There's a lot of different understandings of places and people and things, and different people have different talents.
And yeah, RPG has definitely been watered down to meaninglessness. Part of that is because it never really meant anything that specific to begin with though. It really was just used to describe a game, where you took on the role of a character. However, thanks to the many unique aspects of D&D at its inception, they all got bundled into the label, and as bits and pieces of them are used in other games, they end up labelled RPG elements, despite not necessarily being core to the role playing experience. Enter video games, and once home consoles came around, yeah, most games included some level of lite RPG mechanics - you began to play the role of a character, rather than just a generic sprite on screen, or an army battalion, or other similar cases. Of course, I would never say this is all it takes to create a full Role Playing Game, but it is one crucial aspect of them, and what gave them their name to begin with.
As for the hot elf ranger, its a reference to the propensity of a number of newer players to D&D to decide that they want to be Legolas, because Legolas was awesome. A few DMs I know have essentially outlawed the character archetype unless you can actually do something new with it, because its boring seeing Legolas by another name every game, and rather creatively bankrupt.
Actually, no - I very likely racked up more runs of ME1 than 2 or 3, because before I discovered and started using Gibbed I had to play it to generate continuity via file transfer. The entire series was 'a narrative driven variously middling 3rdP shooter with light RPG elements' to me.
I felt the series went from strength to strength as far as design cohesion and focus went, given by 3 we not only had far more acceptable 3rdP combat, but the writers were imposing more of a personality on their Shepard.
Then I can't rightly tell where comments of Shepard saying and doing their own thing without player input came from, as one was very careful not to do such in pretty much every case. I agree it had a strong narrative focus, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also come with strong role playing capacity as well.
Well, subjectivity is as subjectivity does... As I said, for me the series improved. ME2 is my personal favourite, but in terms of overall design, strengths of each element (writing, presentation, gameplay, etc), and incredible range of content as a complete package (so often DLC is filler, but its DLC's and expansions transformed it)? ME3 was, for me, one of the best games of the last gen, and an incredible way to round off one of that gen's most accomplished series.
However, one element which certainly did rather go off the rails were the Renegade options. By 3, they're just the 'Shepard's A Genocidal Arse' option as opposed to anything else. I'm surprised they didn't let RenShep flick pencils at peoples heads, spit in peoples faces or drop litter wherever they walked...
The biggest problems with 3 for me spawned from 2, where they essentially reboot the franchise. Control of Shepard was taken away from players in order to be Bioware's character entirely, akin to a DM in D&D telling you what your character does, rather than just offering you limited choice in what to do. Additionally, any sense of internal consistency, or being a world with rules, vanished in the name of mindless action with little substance to back it up. Character writing improved, but otherwise the story as a whole just went rapidly downhill. This is without the maddening plot magic armour given to character, various Diablo Ex Machine and Deus Ex Machina thrown around just so you had more explosions, without regard for consistent characters, stories or themes. It was just a mess all around.
But hey, subjectivity and all that.
In terms of creating a role to play, it is objectively superior to anything like Mass Effect or even Dragon Age.
As for Bethesda's dialogue? As I've either said in this thread, or the other one about RPG's (can't remember); for me the dialogue in TES's is representative of what your character is saying. People who complain about the PC's dialogue in TES's always seem like they don't get the series or the concept of RP'ing their own creation; the neutrality of Skyrim's options is ostensibly there so as to not tread on your RP'ing toes too much. Adding more flouncey or personalised text would creep on the player's internal RP - hence why Fallout 4's an anti-RP'er to me, because everything about it asserts a ferociously bland 'character' whose story we're supposed to be forwarding (watch any LP where the player tries to assert a 'bad' or raider-y role, and you'll see how ridiculous Fallout 4 is as an RPG).
As I mentioned in the other thread; Morrowind's a sublime example of how to start a game and give the player room to create their character, and have their actions be consistent to a role. For me, even though Skyrim's opening is poor compared to Morrowind, the dialogue still ties in to that ethos of not stepping on the player's role too much.
You seem to see the text as a literal representation of what your character is saying, and thus the restrictions impinge on RP'ing. The choice that surely most matters is the one you made in having your character even talk to whoever they're conversing with. TES empowers the player, and their created role, in a way no Mass Effect could ever do; what drove your character in Skyrim to seek out the Brotherhood? Why did they decide to help one side in the war? Why did they hike up to High Hrothgar?
You concede that all RPG's have limitations, so why bridle at TES's structure? Only in TES do you have the freedom - real freedom, real choice - to discard the MQ and 'destiny' entirely, yet still burn through 200hrs worth of gameplay and emergent narrative. Each faction is a building block, or chapter, of a story you're telling. Unless the player RP's the same role over and over, not all characters will hike up to the Greybeards, or care about the war. Even if the player hasn't seen a given faction yet, they always have the option to walk away, to remain consistent to their character if a choice its scripted arc asks of you goes against it.
The analogy I tend to use is; Bethesda provide the canvas and the basic tools, and the player creates the picture. A given colour or brush never changes, but how they're used does depending on RP (modding provides even more paints and tools).
...is Morrowind a vastly superior role-playing game to Skyrim? Sadly, yes, so Skyrim wouldn't exactly represent any kind of pinnacle of design. In Morrowind not only is its opening respectful of near limitless options for RP'ing, you can famously choose to slay any and all NPC's, incurring only a textbox warning that you've just created a world that may well be doomed because of your actions. But then it lets you get on with whatever story you were in the process of creating, if that's a consequence you're happy to retain.
Would more text options be nice in Skyrim? Absolutely, as well as more consequences, a less intrusive opening, better writing/combat, and so on... But for me the approximated text doesn't really matter (there's really no difference between what TES or even Fallout 4 does, and what BioWare do with their suggestive text) - the choice of why your character's even speaking to that person in the first place (and whether they're going to continue or stop) is what matters.
The issue with Bethesda's dialogue isn't that its representative, its that its essentially non existent. If I decide I want to tell the Jarl of Whiterun to Toss off and give me his throne... I can't. I can only politely say goodbye. And we know its polite because of the way he reacts. I can't form any real relationships, I can't react in any meaningful way, and my choices and 'freedom' are severely limited in the process.
In Mass Effect, I can add tone to how I talk. I can tell the Council to toss off, and they'll react to it. It'll be a thing that happened. And my Shepard will have done it. Honestly, I find the dialogue in Mass Effect far more representative than that in Skyrim, because its all trying to represent something. A hostile attitude, a friendly attitude, a pragmatic attitude - there are various responses to each situation meant to represent something, and even if the exact words you were thinking don't come out of the actor's mouth, you've at least had the freedom to choose in which way you address the person you're talking to. I mean, imagine a D&D campaign where the only way NPCs would respond to you is as if you had said a generic, polite phrase to them. You could ask the guard taking a valuable prisoner away to be careful with them, knowing them as a good friend, and the DM would just reply "Talk to you later then". It'd be a joke of an RP experience. That's one of the major failings of Bethesda RPGs IMO.
Creating a role, and total freedom of action, aren't as necessary to the role playing experience as having that role to play, and some freedom to play it with. I won't deny that Bethesda covers these bases better, but I don't believe they make a better RPG just by those features.
If a faction is there to support an expressed RP, what on earth is that, if not a literal acknowledgement of a possible role?
I don't care about factions. Factions are meaningless. That just gives me an archetype to work with, not a personality, not a role. Regardless, the factions often end up rather meaningless as well. I am the archmage of Winterfell [Or whatever that mage college was actually called]. The world still treats me as if I'm just another common peasant. I am the leader of one of the nations most famous mercenary bands. Never mind, I'm still nobody. I can go do whatever I want, but it doesn't make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things, as nothing actually changes. My role is never actually validated. Compare to Dragon Age, since it was brought up earlier, where if I say I'm a human noble, everyone knows my family, and is sad to hear what happened to them. They also react to my plans for revenge, or lack thereof. In these games, the roles I play actually end up existing. I am a PTSD suffering survivor of a horrible attack on Elysium. I am a disgraced Dwarven noble, driven from his home for dishonouring his family. In Skyrim, I can SAY I'm anyone, and pretend I'm anyone, but the world doesn't acknowledge it in any way. Its like playing D&D with a DM who responds to you, but insists you stick to a campaign he's written and play within those rules, or sitting in front of a blank wall and pretending to be a wizard. I have more freedom with the wall, but it doesn't account for anything if the wall won't acknowledge it.
I feel if I'm using the term too harshly (which I'd pretty much concede, given I barely count ME as an RPG), you're using it far too loosely as to be almost meaningless.
Because---
Role playing is about playing a role, whether its one you define, or one that's defined for you, or somewhere in between.
---that ostensibly makes Uncharted a frikkin' 'role' player, if neither freedom to change or create a story
or the creation of a role doesn't matter.
To a very light extent, yes. Compare Uncharted to something like a Starcraft skirmish, and tell me they're on the same role playing level. Playing the role of Nathan Drake is more role playing than simply commanding units. That said, as said earlier, that's not all I'd say to make a role playing game. You need to be able to role play the role. That doesn't mean sitting there while literally everything is done for you, it means you get some input. Look at Mass Effect. While your role is restricted, you still get choice in how the role is portrayed, and what the exact details of the role are. Its the same in the Witcher. You don't create the story, or the characters, but you can lend your interpretation of them to the game, and have it acknowledge that. You can role play as them.
So they're using a clever way to keep exploring a universe whilst not treading on the toes of the various head-cannons of players? And this is a "cash in", and not good, respectful design?
To be honest, good, respectful design wouldn't have had such absurd choices as the final ones of ME3, and would have left with a world vastly different depending on your actions, but still reconcilable no matter what.
Additionally, they could have done Dragon Age II; The story of someone other than Shepard in the events leading up to the Reaper invasion.
They could have gone back to the first contact war, or right after it, and had another story there.
Hell, if you want to be really bold, go back to the Rachni wars, and allow the player to play through them. A lot of the details of the wars aren't known, and aren't stated, so a lot could really be done there, with throw backs to the references the main games had to these events.
You could do a story in the two years Shepard was gone, with people unrelated to Shepard but still protecting the galaxy.
There were a lot of options as to how they could have done a new perspective that added to the Mass Effect universe. Instead, they decided to nuke the universe, move to a new one, yet call back the name of Mass Effect for sales. Its not a clever way to solve the problem. It breaks internal consistency, doesn't solve most of the problems presented by the ending of Mass Effect 3, and requires a lot of contrivances to begin to work - let alone removing any semblance of the Mass Effect universe, outside the fan favourite races in all likelihood. Its a lazy copout option, not a clever one.
Well, that's 100% speculation. It could turn out to be a cynical sequel, or it might not.
If we're in prediction mode? Going from all that's gone before - Mass Effect and Dragon Age - I'd say it'll very likely be a game I'll end up enjoying and sinking a lot of hours into, given, so far, BioWare have never let me down when it comes to character narrative, dialogue, and having an engaging world to place those in. DA:I was/is incredibly frustrating and, frankly, loathsome (SP MMO design) and idiotic (puddle shallow combat) at times... but it still had it where it counts for me.
Oh, I'll handily admit its 'speculation', but knowing Bioware's track record, that's what it'll be. Maybe I'll be surprised, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
You may enjoy it, and if you do, more power to you. It may be good, and if it is, more power to everyone. But I ain't getting any hopes up. Ever since ME2, Bioware have been on an uninterrupted downhill spiral [Inquisition, despite all its flaws, is probably the best game they've produced since then sadly, and it is very flawed - though still enjoyable], and there's only so many times you can say "They'll learn for next time" before you realise they won't.
I do very much hope DA:I's core - utterly banal - design flow isn't carried on to it, though. 'Collect/kill X number of Y' isn't 'content', it's just filler. In DA:I you can at least ignore almost all of it, so if ME:A is blighted by such lazy design I hope they allow you to essentially skip it.
They're bringing back the Mako, but can they make it worthwhile whilst retaining a sentimental notion of 'exploration'? I don't see how, unless they had another two years added to the dev cycle. DA:I's zones were utterly gorgeous - modestly sized masterpieces, meticulously lit and detailed, with sound design (and surprisingly subtle music) to match. But 'find X of Y' isn't 'content' to give those areas real value or identity. Gamers seem to want 'exploration' back, but I'd argue it was never there in the first place; ME1's bouncing over palette swapped terrain - x50, or however many uncharted worlds it included - isn't exploration, it was window-wiping a map for POI's. Its 'content' on those worlds was just as much filler as DA:I's.
Personally, I don't feel ME:A should bother to try to scratch that itch. We have games like Elite right now, and Star Citizen around the corner/on the horizon/probably-coming-out-sometime-this-century, and so a notion of what exploration really is in a sci-fi/sci-fantasy game is no longer what it once was.
It certainly has room for exploration, the issue is the ME1 Mako and DA:I do exploration in the most unimaginative, and uninspired way possible; collectathons. Some of the best exploration in Mass Effect was interacting with the people in each port, and discovering new ways to solve the problems - and solving them too. Utilising some of your team's powers to get to side areas, and having a worthwhile unlock there, is also a good way to do things. The best form of exploration, though, comes from complex mechanics. Things that interplay together, that aren't just handed to you, but that allow you to both perform better in activities such as combat, as well as open entry to new areas of the world. Zelda is one of the more iconic games for this, with environmental effects and items interacting in predictable, foreseeable, and novel ways, encouraging you to test them out and explore to see what they do. Such things could easily be interspersed in missions in a Mass Effect game, and would actually make boss fights ten times more interesting for everyone if you had to discover how to defeat them, rather than just pump bullets at it.
Open world though... Not sure its the best idea for Mass Effect. The game has always been far more story focused. I wouldn't be surprised if it did this, given Inquisition, but Mass Effect shined for its well written characters and plot, not for the open world Mako aspects.
...and yes, Elite features not just 50 odd, but a few billion airless palette swap terrains to bounce over looking for 'content'. But, ironically, I love that because it is consistent with its more harder sci-fi vibe - space as we know it is a pretty dead, empty, imposingly lonely place. If Mass Effect Andromeda was a harder sci-fi game and wanted to depict more realistic lifeless worlds, I'd be all for it. But it's not, ergo when the player's down on the surface they need things to do of real value (which is why I preferred ME2's much smaller 'away' missions).
Yeah, honestly I think there's a compromise to be had. They were able to design a fairly decent open area for Overlord in ME2, and were they to have the Mako running around somewhere like that, with a few 'dungeons' of sorts that are more scripted and better designed - that could work. In terms of main missions, one of the things that lacked in 2 and 3 was the sense of scale 1 had. Driving the Mako around Feros, Noveria and Vermire, or Ilos, gave the places scale. They felt like large areas, and you knew where in the world you were. Tuchanka in ME2... Cutscene, appear somewhere, do a mission, back at hub. It can't have been truly that hard to create a relatively simple road section, thrown a couple of decorations on, and had you drive there yourself. Same goes for Illium. Have us drive the cab to where we need to go. We could do it for Shadow Broker, and it wouldn't be too hard to make some basic traffic geometry between places. Hell, even SWTOR managed it - even if mostly on rails. Add in some mission specific events when you near a mission, and hey presto, it works. But simple loading screens were a let down.
Ideally missions would take place spread out over several well designed and focused locations, and you could travel between these locations ala Overlord. Its how it worked in 1 for the side missions there, just the terrain at that point was unwieldy and incredibly bland, as were the copy/paste interiors. And it made the side missions work a lot better IMO, to feel they were grounded in the world.
