What?s the point of making your own decisions in an RPG

[hypothetical fact]

If you don't like lineality play a roguelike game. Just remember that you are trading lineality for squiggles that are meant to represent the game and the majority of the time you will just be a hamster in a maze.

 

[jboking]

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."

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.

Actually the only cannon ending was the one where you save meryl, because both meryl and Otacon are alive in the next games. Not to mention the fact that Otacon had an active camo suit and was rescued from the fox acapeligo. it makes sense that Snake had the inf. bandana from meryl and otacons active camo in the next game.

On topic, I really dont care about choices in RPG's, because there actually aren't any. even in Fallout you are constrained as to what you do. Either way, a good portion of any RPG is the story and I perfere to leave it to the pros.

 

[Alex_P]

Most RPG video games, both "Eastern" and "Western", already tell the same kind of zero-to-hero bildungsroman save-the-world story. The least they could do is give the player some opportunity to derail it.

-- Alex

 

[mhitman]

I would assume that being able to make your own decisions would give a unique experience to an extent, this so far has failed from what i've seen

 

[The Iron Ninja]

What I really hate is the kind of "choices" you got in Pokemon and Golden Sun.

Eg.
Some other character: "Hey (whatever the main character's name was), should we save the town from certain destruction?"
Whatever the main character's name was: No.
Some other character: Aw come on (whatever the main character's name was), we can't just leave them there to die, how about it?
Whatever the main character's name was: No.
Some other character: Aw come on (whatever the main character's name was), we can't just leave them there to die, how about it?
Whatever the main character's name was: No.
Some other character: Aw come on (whatever the main character's name was), we can't just leave them there to die, how about it?\
Whatever the main character's name was: Yes.
Some other character: Great! We're all super heroic!

 

[samsprinkle]

I want to see a game with the depth of a Bethesda game but make it a COD style shooter. It would have dynamic choices and interesting dialogue. But hey...no-one cares what Joe-the-gamer thinks...except palin.

Palin Productions is proud to present...Call of Bethesda

 

[Convenient_Label]

The point of making your own decisions in a CRPG is to enjoy the game, the sort of decision really depends on the genre.
If you like 'digital novels' then you're probably happy with the ability to make five choices during the whole game and get one of twelve different endings in one of twenty different ways. You're probably playing a bishojo or bishonen game, though, so too many choices would interfere with your 'me time' anyway...
If you like JRPGs then you're probably happy carefully optimising your characters' fighting stats and enduring endless grind for the prefect angel universe-destroying sword of Persephone.
If you like 'classic' western PC-RPGs then you're probably used to the idea that plot-related decisions have a strong local effect but don't impact the world. You're probably also used to planning the advancement for a character from level to level such that she eventually becomes the most unstoppable fairy-bishop-ninja-alchemist EVAR. Although, that oblique reference to Wizardry does remind me; the series did allow you to carry a single party through four games, with their decisions in previous games strongly affecting the early game of each subsequent game, but they only really had four possible plotlines, which all contained versions of the same events.

Generally, players will gravitate towards an enjoyable genre for them and have the expectation that the games in it will present choices that they find satisfying. If somebody presented me with a new western PC-RPG style game (perhaps something that looked a bit like Menzoberranzan, but new) but I discovered that I was unable to control the direction the party moved, such that they walked through dungeons along a hardcoded route and encountered hardcoded enemies and conversations in a fixed storyline from start to finish, I would be quite peeved. I wouldn't care that I got to do the fighting and got to read the dialogue, I'd be wondering why this JRPG had tricked me into believing it was anything like Menzoberranzan.

 

[Silver]

On topic, I really dont care about choices in RPG's, because there actually aren't any. even in Fallout you are constrained as to what you do. Either way, a good portion of any RPG is the story and I perfere to leave it to the pros.

You truly are an idiot, aren't you? You clearly have no idea what the word choice means.

Let's give you an example.

Town A is under attack, and the hero walks by. You companion says "Let's save them!"

If you can answer "Yay, lets!" and nothing else. You DON'T have a choice.

If you can answer "Yay! Let's!" or "No, screw them." and you save them whatever you say, you have the illusion of choice. You still don't have a choice.

If you can answer "Yay, let's!" or "No, screw them." and whatever you pick is what happens, you HAVE a CHOICE.



It doens't matter if it's preplanned. It has to be. YOU STILL HAVE A CHOICE! How hard is that to understand, there's like three people, at least already in this thread who doens't understand that. If you can choose between different actions, or responses, and these change what happens in the game you have a choice. That's what a choice is.

Giving you total freedom is something completely unrelated, and you people should go back to school, because you seriously missed something in your education. Total freedom is good and all, but it's irrelevant when talking about choice. You have tons of choices in Fallout or Arcanum, no matter if every response is planned out in advance. They usually don't have any real effect on the real storyline though, just a few people at a time. That doesn't matter. They're still choices.

 

[jboking]

On topic, I really dont care about choices in RPG's, because there actually aren't any. even in Fallout you are constrained as to what you do. Either way, a good portion of any RPG is the story and I perfere to leave it to the pros.

You truly are an idiot, aren't you? You clearly have no idea what the word choice means.

Let's give you an example.

Town A is under attack, and the hero walks by. You companion says "Let's save them!"

If you can answer "Yay, lets!" and nothing else. You DON'T have a choice.

If you can answer "Yay! Let's!" or "No, screw them." and you save them whatever you say, you have the illusion of choice. You still don't have a choice.

If you can answer "Yay, let's!" or "No, screw them." and whatever you pick is what happens, you HAVE a CHOICE.



It doens't matter if it's preplanned. It has to be. YOU STILL HAVE A CHOICE! How hard is that to understand, there's like three people, at least already in this thread who doens't understand that. If you can choose between different actions, or responses, and these change what happens in the game you have a choice. That's what a choice is.

Giving you total freedom is something completely unrelated, and you people should go back to school, because you seriously missed something in your education. Total freedom is good and all, but it's irrelevant when talking about choice. You have tons of choices in Fallout or Arcanum, no matter if every response is planned out in advance. They usually don't have any real effect on the real storyline though, just a few people at a time. That doesn't matter. They're still choices.

The point I was trying to get at is the idea that you are always constrained by the designers ideas of what choices are acceptable. I suppose I didn't highlight that too well, I should have said free will, and for that I am sorry.

However, You could try to avoid personal attacks and making yourself look bad.

 

[Silver]

Yeah. I could. Given how many people are so completely wrong so far though, I judged a rather harsh response a more viable option to both get people back on track, and clear up the definitions. Sure, I could have left out some of it. If you took offence, I apologize.

If you purposefully misused the words, I still stand by my statement. Even if it's not you who got your definitions wrong, you're promoting the misuse of the words and concepts in that case.

 

[AdjectiveAnimal]

Because people are easily distracted.
*falls out of chair trying to grab a fly*

 

[Alex_P]

I think there's room to talk about the depth, breadth, nature, and meaningfulness of choices.

Crappy choices are still choices, though.

I certainly don't think that a choice that leads to prepared content is any less valid than a choice that leads to some kind of improvised or emergent result. (A branching script just limits how many choices can be offered effectively.)

-- Alex

 

[geldonyetich]

The trouble with games utilizing proper dynamic content is only that designing a game to be that dynamic (changing) as opposed to static (unchanging) is hard. Suddenly, the players are flying well off the path of the story you had planned for them, neatly killing vital locations and people needed to progress the storyline, going places which you wouldn't have had to have developed at all.

That said, as a fellow who has been dabbling a bit with dynamic content production myself, I have to say that it's not impossible to create a dynamic RPG. It just takes more than the usual foresight in design. One of these days, I hope to finish a working prototype, so that professional game developers can busily copy me and take CRPGs out of their rut.

 

[latenightapplepie]

I thought Mass Effect did it well. There were a few choices that effected the game slightly but they were satisfying. Also if as promised the choices will actually effect the sequel greatly. Other games like Persona 4, the choices didn?t seem all too important.

I agree. Some people are going to be a little unsatisfied by the fact that they can't immediately start frying aliens left, right and center like the dirty xenophobe they may be trying to roleplay as.

Ultimately, problem is game designers don't want you to have too much choice. Then not only would our puny brains explode from the psychological enormity of it all, but we would be able to miss half a game's content and storyline. Game designers have a storyline, a setting, characters and gameplay that the designers want you to experience and (hopefully) enjoy. Giving players a choice to miss them is a bad idea.

 

[Flour]

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.

You're confusing "But thou must" with "Illusion of choice"

"But thou must" is when the story only continues when you pick the correct answer.(you're the hero even though you said "no" 50 times)
"Illusion of choice" is when your choice affects the current conversation but not the outcome.(you destroy the planet to kill your enemy, or your enemy destroys it trying to kill you)

 

[Silver]

Latenightapplepie, the gaming industry isn't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

The reason there aren't choices in games is because that costs money, not because developers want you to experience everything. And not only does it cost money to put in extra choices, you'll also play the game longer, and you won't buy other games, because this one already gives you what you need. That's why there aren't choices. Not because game designers don't want to leave players out of the loop.

 

[Tyrphanax]

Simply put; Customisation equals Fun. The more of yourself you put in your avatar, the more you get out of the game.

 

[Galliam]

Simply put; Customisation equals Fun. The more of yourself you put in your avatar, the more you get out of the game.

Agreed. When I think of an RPG, I would certainly LIKE to effect the end of the game with my in game choices, but I'll settle for wearing a cool outfit and acting like an idiot to all my in game counterparts. Although I can never bring myself to be evil in those pick your response type games just because the way they say things just sounds so openly mean.

However, if you're looking to effect the end of the game, why don't you just play Dungeons and Dragons? It's fun, I promise.

 

[Silver]

When I think of an RPG, I would certainly LIKE to effect the end of the game with my in game choices, but I'll settle for wearing a cool outfit and acting like an idiot to all my in game counterparts. Although I can never bring myself to be evil in those pick your response type games just because the way they say things just sounds so openly mean.

That's because no game ever allows you to play evil. You're either goody-two shoes or a very stupid jerk that likes getting into fights.