OK I got what you're saying, I misunderstood. Also somehow I figured you would agree with the ATS.Nivag said:
What?s the point of making your own decisions in an RPG
- Thread starter Archereus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
well yeah their are some but their are more rpgs out there and mmos that no matter how cruel you are to your group members they will all love you at the end and some times they offer two paths but they will only let you take the one and suchsuperpandaman said:
Not only do I agree that the main attractive of many, many, MANY RPGs has, in fact, shallowed down to the story behind it, and, once that is mixed with free albedrium to pick a choice, there is serious toruble if such a choice is NOT going to utterly change the whole story and turn the whole thing upside down or completely buggered up (get the irony?). In all honesty, after repeating the same game style (with minor variations, I agree fully) of RPGs, we have prettymuch seen them all several times, and until some developer is illuminated with a genius idea (be it divinely or through cocaine, I personally do not care), all they can do is try to make a decent story.
What kind of RPG do you mean? Do you mean the console RPG (which is just a glorified adventure game with a number cruncher) ? There's plenty of in depth RPGs (usually found on the PC) where your choices will affect the rest of the game.
I agree completely. Fable almost has the right idea , just needs more story branches.Charli said:
There isn't. It makes some people feel better because there's this big stigma against linearity. Personality I can take either choice or non choice as long as it's well implimented.
No, the "illusion of choice" is when a jRPG gives you a dialouge option but the game will never progress until you pick the "right" option (and you know this happens a lot, in like every jRPG.) Whereas a true RPG like Fallout will actually give you choices, and force you to live with the consequences of those choices.Onmi said:
"Real Time" is a term used by computer scientists to differentiate between different types of programs. According to Wikipedia:Nivag said:
RTSs are technically real-time, as things proceed according to schedules and timers based on real, actual time. If an RTS was non-real-time, you would build bases as fast as you could click the build button. Your troops would move as fast as your computer could move them (which might slow down or speed up if you doing other things).
Turn-based strategies are not real time, because it doesn't matter how fast you press the buttons, or how long it takes your computer to draw your new building. They happen functionally as soon as you hit the "Okay" button.
Do you suppose there is a market for a strategy game with a realistic time scale? You give your orders in the morning, go to work, check in at lunch to see how the skirmish is going, and evaluate your strategy over dinner every night for three weeks. Might be fun to take the fast-twitch out of the strategy genre while still making orders time-sensitive.
Most games like this pick a "cannon" ending that most fits the theme of the second game. I think that's a good compromise between narrative structure, consistent characterization, and branching-paths gameplay. It gives you something to strive for, as in, "The established character would have tried to collect all seven magic rubies WITHOUT slaughtering the villagers, so that's the cannon ending."harhol said:
3 things:
1) Clearly, you haven't played a lot of PnP RPGs: I've been in several games of D&D where I got railroaded massively, and it ruins the playing experience for me there as much as it does in a computer game. No: you can't kill that character, he needs to be alive in the next adventure I run, so he gets away, even though you do have a crossbow pointed at his head, and a readied action. Actually happened to me.
2) MMORPGs are worse than single-player ones, for the most part. It's hard to feel special about being a lvl 40 character (which is supposed to be higher than "normal" people are) when everyone around me is lvl 80. And since there's so little difference between the character builds, I begin to wonder why someone hasn't solved this problem before.
Oh wait. Everyone already has, but I need to do it again. Because I do.
3) If you really want one of these: try it yourself. Trust me, it's hard. It takes me 10-15 hours to prep for a once-through game of D&D at a convention: 8 hours of play time; and I'll be surprised once or twice, usually because of a PC ability. I've spent maybe 800 hours building a world, and still had to make stuff up on the spot repeatedly (at least one session had over 10 surprises) for the maybe 400 hours I've DMed said world for a weekly game. That group, just playing as they did, required me to flesh out some NPCs I had barely described, build NPCs that never existed before, build places that never existed before, and much, much more.
If I wanted to take an estimate, I'd need about a year of work, 2-3 hours a day, to build a small city (5 000 or so people) complete enough to make sure I could never be surprised in it, and flow with any action a person could take. However, remember that the "computer" running that city (me) has a built-in improvisation, emotion, and creative drivers that no digital computer can come close to emulating.
1) Clearly, you haven't played a lot of PnP RPGs: I've been in several games of D&D where I got railroaded massively, and it ruins the playing experience for me there as much as it does in a computer game. No: you can't kill that character, he needs to be alive in the next adventure I run, so he gets away, even though you do have a crossbow pointed at his head, and a readied action. Actually happened to me.
2) MMORPGs are worse than single-player ones, for the most part. It's hard to feel special about being a lvl 40 character (which is supposed to be higher than "normal" people are) when everyone around me is lvl 80. And since there's so little difference between the character builds, I begin to wonder why someone hasn't solved this problem before.
Oh wait. Everyone already has, but I need to do it again. Because I do.
3) If you really want one of these: try it yourself. Trust me, it's hard. It takes me 10-15 hours to prep for a once-through game of D&D at a convention: 8 hours of play time; and I'll be surprised once or twice, usually because of a PC ability. I've spent maybe 800 hours building a world, and still had to make stuff up on the spot repeatedly (at least one session had over 10 surprises) for the maybe 400 hours I've DMed said world for a weekly game. That group, just playing as they did, required me to flesh out some NPCs I had barely described, build NPCs that never existed before, build places that never existed before, and much, much more.
If I wanted to take an estimate, I'd need about a year of work, 2-3 hours a day, to build a small city (5 000 or so people) complete enough to make sure I could never be surprised in it, and flow with any action a person could take. However, remember that the "computer" running that city (me) has a built-in improvisation, emotion, and creative drivers that no digital computer can come close to emulating.
And some games say "to hell with it" and pick both endings as cannon, like when Snake had both the active camo and infinite ammo bandana in MGS2, even though those were seperate prizes you get depending on which ending you got in the original MGS.Dr Faust said: