Meccanical;n9295271 said:Or we using gameplay and combat interchangeably again?
I hope not.
There's so much more potential an possibilities to it than that.
Last edited:
Meccanical;n9295271 said:Or we using gameplay and combat interchangeably again?
Of course not, not in the world of Bethesda's "rpgs". But I hope you won't deny that T:ToN was an epic fail and InXile shoot themselves in the foot? Game's really weak at both story and gameplay.kofeiiniturpa;n9295211 said:Oh, you're part that group. I hope you're not going to tell me with bright eyes and straight face that Inxile is the worst thing that happened to RPG's because TTON didn't reach the stars it aimed. I've seen pretty colourful expressions of disappointment over ir not becoming the new PST.
But the stories weren't as bad to clarify them as trash. And characters and interactions are still stories connecting to gameplay. And regarding Fallout, no, not even close to the story absense of blobbers.kofeiiniturpa;n9295211 said:These all have cool worlds to explore and interesting characters to interact with, and neat gameplay to boot, but the core storylines in all are quite forgettable. Them being good RPG's comes from elsewhere.
kofeiiniturpa;n9295211 said:I mean... Of course there needs to be a narrative string to make the role relevant and to give a reason to play it and all the better if it's a good story, but... Seriously now?
And Sard, you can sit down with a group and do as you described, that's valid and fair and fun, but are you really playing "a game" anymore rather than just having a themed socializing event...
I am more on kofeiiniturpa side here... but maybe even a lot more so extreme then kofeiiniturpa is (on certain things)... atleast in certain ways.Rawls;n9294711 said:I said exactly that later in my post. It was my entire point that the other stuff is just as important once you've created the central narrative design. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. You think it's better to create the systems and gameplay designs and then just add in a story that fits them?
The story and choice component is the core of all my favorite RPGs. The center. The mechanics and all the rest are essential to making a good game as well. However, if you start with focus on that rather than the story, it often comes off feeling empty in my experience.
I guess we'll just agree to disagree. A great story is much more important to me than being able to have numerous ways to express yourself or specific gameplay options. All of my favorite games have a great story at their core. Also, story-centric does not mean heavy handed storyline. Having space to breath and a story to tell are both important, but the story is more important IMO. I've enjoyed games that had a great story and very little rpg mechanics (the last of us) ... I've never enjoyed an RPG with lots of fun gameplay options and a poor story. Optimally you have both, but story ought to be the center of the game.
metalmaniac21;n9295321 said:But the stories weren't as bad to clarify them as trash. And characters and interactions are still stories connecting to gameplay. And regarding Fallout, no, not even close to the story absense of blobbers.
I'd say story and gameplay in RPGs is a two interconnected beings, one simply doesn't do much without other. Blobbers are kinda awkward exception tho...
I would submit Fallout Tactics to you guys... because while most people agree that FOT has THE best combat mechanics of the old Fallout series, most people would say that it's story and "roleplaying oppertunities" (so conversations and what not) where extremely lacking and way to linear... it is also at best "semi-canon" vs the main Fallout games (so FO1-4 + New Vegas). XDSardukhar;n9295371 said:As for your comment about Fallout 1 and 2 having forgettable stories, no. Just no. They were both memorable and rich. The water chip quest was a classic Holy Grail/MacGuffin story, with the irony of trying to find a small piece of tech amidst a wasteland of almost-what-you-need-tech. Add in crazed Mutants and zombies for fun. Finish with a zinger.
The Fallout 2 storyline is a return-to-Eve plot that uses that theme as the background to explore a world where other people have tried to recreate their own gardens. How the player deals with that is a core part of their growth.
kofeiiniturpa;n9294581 said:Your take otherwise sounds like that of a marketing analyst or a lobbyist.
kofeiiniturpa;n9294581 said:because a lot of potentially fun design has been sacrificed in the altar of streamlining and never brought into "today". You shouldn't neglect either side because you are then losing something; the old games just have been neglected more and that's why I'm bringing it up more.
kofeiiniturpa;n9294581 said:Should these "casuals" be a target audience in the first place? I think clarity on what and how with an interesting down to earth presentation would be quite enough to lure in interested people, some more wide-perspective casuals among them.
Meccanical;n9295271 said:Or we using gameplay and combat interchangeably again?
I re-read, re-watch and re-play a ton. I'm about 1/3 of the way through my 4th Witcher 3 play-through. Great story IMO. I've played the ME trilogy 3-4 times. Great Story IMO. Also that fact you can change it and lead to different results is part of what adds to the replay-ability. That's why choice and consequence is a crucial part of the narrative design of RPGs. I have only played the last of us through 1.5 times for the reasons you state though ... probably because there's no choice involved. I still loved that story but there is definitely something to be said for replay-ability.Calistarius;n9296261 said:Another reason is that if I have seen the story once, I really don't feel I need to see it again... that is partly why I almost never rewatch tv-series, or a fairly large portion of all the movies I watch... because I have already seen it and know what is going to happen (although, for some reason I am compleatly able to re-read my favorit books over and over again... not sure why that is... XD ).
Calistarius;n9296261 said:If CP2077 is something else though, and leans more towards the actual pen and paper rpg-like kind of an videogame RPG... then chances are that I would play it a lot more often. Because as I said... gameplay mechanics are really importent to me when it comes to if I replay games often or not, or if at all.
Suhiira;n9280371 said:Not sure where you get CDPR doing FPS from.
So far we have zero solid info on the combat system CP2077 will use.
Diablo 3.Sardukhar;n9295161 said:Yeah, an RPG with good gameplay and crap story isn't much of an RPG. It's just...a game. Tetris, anyone?
metalmaniac21;n9295321 said:But I hope you won't deny that T:ToN was an epic fail and InXile shoot themselves in the foot? Game's really weak at both story and gameplay.
But the stories weren't as bad to clarify them as trash.
Sardukhar;n9295371 said:What, you think dice rolls and/or some made-up ruleset is any fairer than a GM choosing what happens when PCs act - how the world reacts?
You think that unless it's determined by a system created by a coder or a game designer, the NPC reaction, the world-response is irrelevant?
What do you think a themed socialized event like a Monopoly night is?
As for your comment about Fallout 1 and 2 having forgettable stories, no. Just no. They were both memorable and rich. The water chip quest was a classic Holy Grail/MacGuffin story, with the irony of trying to find a small piece of tech amidst a wasteland of almost-what-you-need-tech. Add in crazed Mutants and zombies for fun. Finish with a zinger.
The Fallout 2 storyline is a return-to-Eve plot that uses that theme as the background to explore a world where other people have tried to recreate their own gardens. How the player deals with that is a core part of their growth.
In the end, all your system is is either a clumsy replication of the real world, or an arbitrary construction of the designer,
Calistarius;n9296261 said:I am more on kofeiiniturpa side here...
Lisbeth_Salander;n9297121 said:but without focusing more on oldschool design implementations just for the sake of them being oldschool
Lisbeth_Salander;n9297121 said:In my relpy I told it was possible to sell to the casuals a hardcore game that has many old school ideas. To make that, it would be necessary to hide these hardcore aspects of the game, in other words, making them more subttle in order to not scare away casuals.
Yeah, as said... story just does not cut it for me to keep coming back very often... for me it mostly comes down to the gameplay mechanics.Rawls;n9297391 said:I re-read, re-watch and re-play a ton. I'm about 1/3 of the way through my 4th Witcher 3 play-through. Great story IMO. I've played the ME trilogy 3-4 times. Great Story IMO. Also that fact you can change it and lead to different results is part of what adds to the replay-ability. That's why choice and consequence is a crucial part of the narrative design of RPGs. I have only played the last of us through 1.5 times for the reasons you state though ... probably because there's no choice involved. I still loved that story but there is definitely something to be said for replay-ability.
When it comes to TV-series and movies I do re-watch some things... but they are usually very specific things, and I usually will need a long enough time between each watching (we are talking about anything from a few months, to well over 10-15+ years here)... and the amount of time inbetween depends on what it is. Tv-series will usually only ever get 1 watch-through... and the ones I do watch again need many years inbetween each rewatching, especially the really long ones. For example, even my alltime favorit sci-fi tv-series ever, Farscape (1999-2004), I have only ever seen fully through two times... when it was originally first aired, and again about 8-9 or so years ago I think it was (I do feel I am closing up on rewatching the entire thing again soon though... I just have to get a few other series out of the way first). Some several years ago I also saw S:AAB again (Space: Above and Beyond), after having seen it in the early to mid 90's the first time (still annoyes me to this day that they cancelled that show). And currently I am actually rewatching the entire Star Trek franchise (and I mean all of them... every series and movie... even the animated one), I have seen all of them once befor (except the Animated one, and I saw them between late 80's to mid 00's)... right now I am on Deep Space Nine and Voyager... part of the reason I am watching them is due to the new Star Trek series that is going to come out soon (but it is also because I like them... well, almost all of them... If I ever watch it all again, I won't be watching the animated one again... XD ). Actually, the Star Trek run I am doing is what I need to finish befor I might watch Farscape again... it will depend on what I feel like once I am done with Star Trek.Rawls;n9297391 said:But even things I can't change, I re-watch. I've watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Game of Thrones reruns innumerable times. A good story brings me back more than interesting gameplay. Assassins Creed Black Flag was SOOOOOOO much fun being a pirate, upgrading a ship, crafting new equipment, exploring and gallivanting across the Caribbean. But the story was pretty meh. Only played it once. Enjoyed it. Haven't gone back.
So this should sort of mean that you compleatly understand what I am saying about how importent gameplay and game mechanics are?Rawls;n9297391 said:These days I basically play four types of games, ARPGs, Story Action games (RDR, Uncharted, TLoU), Grand Strategy Games, and GWENT . I honestly probably put the most hours into Grand Strategy over the course of my life (specifically the paradox series Europa Universals and Crusader Kings). Those strategy games actually show my preference pretty well. EUIV and CKII were release close enough in time that they're fairly similar from a tech standpoint. EUIV has the better gameplay IMO. You can explore the world, tech upgrades are more interesting, governance is more interesting, etc. War is much more involved. CKII has a better story because you play as a single dynasty, and there are characters and stories and intrigue and building families, and feuds that go on for generations. I've dumped hundreds more hours into CKII because it has an intriguing narrative aspect to it. Making the stories is what keeps me coming back.
Well, I have asumed since pretty much the start that CP2077 would be some kind of ARPG... atleast when considering what CDPR has said, and considering their previous work in the gaming industy. I just have felt that I should still express what I might like more then a ARPG, because maybe it would mean that either we get a bit lucky and that CP2077 becomes a lot more closer to an actual pnp rpg then any other ARPG out there (some of what they have said have sort of implied this as well, which is also partly why I constantly talk about wanting a rpg that is very similar to pnp rpg's gameplay and mechanicsly)... or that someone takes note of that there are people out there who do prefer a style of game which you do not see in the AAA-catagory of games anymore really, and as such might decide to make a AAA game in the "true RPG" catagory.Rawls;n9297391 said:I mean I'm pretty confident it's going to be an ARPG. That's sort of what CDPR does. Now this is five years old ... but remember the original promise (an image of it is at 5:37):
If it lives up to that. I'll be more than happy.
Heh... XDkofeiiniturpa;n9301761 said:Finally. Thank you. I was starting to think I'm the ugly duckling around here.
Calistarius;n9302101 said:There are of course other things that you and I do not agree on really...
Calistarius;n9302101 said:I was starting to think I'm the ugly duckling around here.
Eltyris;n9300431 said:include interaction with the world and emergent/non scripted scenarios as vital part of gameplay and no artificial restrictions
I've never said mechanics aren't important. I said for RPGs it is best to first develop the story and narrative design then focus on the gameplay design. Choices and narrative are the center of an RPG. Also, the greater point is that even in Grand Strategy (which as you say is inherently more mechanic based), the game I enjoy the most is centered around the personal stories of one family and their story.Calistarius;n9302011 said:So this should sort of mean that you compleatly understand what I am saying about how importent gameplay and game mechanics are?
NukeTheMoon;n9299931 said: