Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

+

Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun


  • Total voters
    273
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.
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:
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.
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...
 
Last edited:
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...

Yeah, seriously.

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?

That's what games are - challenging, interesting, often competitive events. Simply because you add a clumsy middle-man in the form of random rolls or a "physics-based model" doesn't make them any more game-y. More limited, sure. Single-player removes the gross social aspect from it and lets you wander around at a safe distance from the creator - but they are still there. Your game system just rewards your mental (or physical) efforts when you puzzle-solve within the creator's constructs. That's all.

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.

So, if the narrative isn't in your face, yeah, it's Tetris or CoD or Starcraft 2, where the vast bulk of your time is spent in the gameplay department, not experiencing a story and changing it with your actions. While you play a role in that story. Role-playing.

In the end, all your system is is either a clumsy replication of the real world, or an arbitrary construction of the designer, several steps removed from what is GM fiat. It's always Rule Zero in the end.
 
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.
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.

I will have to say that most of my all time favorit games had really good stories (atleast in my mind... others might dissagree with me on if they where good or not), so as such that could potentually line up exactly with what you said Rawls... that story is more important then gameplay... but... there is a fairly big difference here for me.

Almost all of those top favorit games of mine which has a good story, are games which I don't play often. Most of those games has only ever been played and finished once, at the most possibly 2-3 times (due to various reasons).... these games are just not games which I keep coming back to playing over and over and over again. And part of the reason for that is that their gameplay is usually not either that good, or because that particular type of gameplay is one which I don't feel a need or want to play just for the sake of it. 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 ).

The games I do how ever play over and over and over again, are games where the gameplay of the game is really good, and is especialy amongst the kinds of gameplays that I highly enjoy... and with these games it almost never matters how good or bad the story is, I will still come back to them often to play them again and again.

So while I might give a game with a really good story anywhere from 50-300+ hours worth of gametime, that time is for the most part only ever through one single (possibly 2 or 3 depending on circumstances) playthrough. Where as with games with gameplay which is both really good, and one I highly enjoy (even if the story is good or bad), with them I can spend thousands of hours on them in almost untold numbers of time of me coming back to them.

I can almost garantee you that the Witcher games would be games where I would play them once and then never come back to them again (or possibly come back to again a large amount of years later.. like, 5 or 10 years later). And I know this because basicly all other games which are in the same genre as Witcher, that I have played (and likes to for that matter), are games which I either have never returned to after that one playthrough, or only have returned to a very limited amount of times. Games like the Mass Effect series, the Elder Scrolls series, all the Deus Ex games, Fallout 3-4 and New Vegas, the Gothica series, the Borderlands games, Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines, the Fable series, and also games like the Diablo series and simmilar games, Secrets of Mana... also I am sure DA2 and Inquistion would fall here as well (since I have not played them yet... I will though)... basicly... Action Role-Playing games... ARPG's are the kinds of games which I do tend to highly like, but I almost never come back to them ever after one or a very small numer of times. For the most part I tend to call games like this as "RPG-lites"... because while they might have a strong story, and be fairly to very good with the conversations stuff, they are almost always strongly lacking in most, if not all, of the other pnp rpg mechanics. I mean heck, when I look at all these games, the ones which have the strongest levels of the pnp rpg gameplay mechanics are actually Fallout 3/NV/4 (they are also the games I have probably started up a new character in the most amongst all the ones I mentioned), and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines as well for the most part, and some aspect of the elder Scrolls series (but less and less so the further away from Morrowind that you get)... all others, including the Witcher games, tend to strongly lack in most of the pnp rpg gameplay mechanics, since they for the most part rely on the players own actual skills rather then the characters (which still is also a thing in all of the new Fallout Games, and Vampire, and Elder Scrolls... just not to the exact same level as most of the others).

Where as games like Fallout 1-2, and Dragon Age: Origins (only DAO though, as DA2 and Inquisition are ARPG's as mentined), Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns/Dragonfall/Hong Kong, Divinity: Original Sin, Final Fantasy VII up to XII, all the Suikoden games, and a whole bunch of other games somewhere in the range of these, are games which I will come back to some several times more often then the ones I mentioned befor... we are talking about maybe 3-6 times here (with a few exeptions maybe). And one of the absolute main factors, into why this is the case vs ARPG's in general, comes down to gameplay and game mechanics. These kinds of gameplay and mechanics of these games is one of my cravings. And a large part of that reason is that most of these games, with a few exceptions (mostly the JRPG's), feel like I am playing an actual pen and paper rpg... which is a really importent aspect of it, since pnp rpg's is what I use to measure up all videogame's that are classed as being some kind of rpg (be it a full one, an action one, or those with "rpg elements" in them).

Then there is the final stage of this... games like the old UFO: Enemy Unknown ("X-COM: UFO Defence" as others know it as) and Terror from the Deep, the new XCOM: Enemy Unknown and XCOM2, Fallout Tactics (yes, I play FOT more often then FO1 and FO2), MechCommander 1-2, Rimworld, Battle Brothers, Darkest Dungeon, the "Brigade E"-game series (the first one is known as "Brigade E5: New Jagged Union", where as the second one is known as "7.62 High Calibre" (unofficially known as E6 I think), and the 2+ other games in the series all also have different names (and are unofficually known as E7, E8, etc amongst the fans of the series)), FTL: Faster Than Light... and even games like Blood Bowl, Mordheim, and Battlefleet Gothic, which are all based on Games Workshop table top games... these are the kinds of games that keep pulling me back in over and over again. Especially the new XCOM games have been the nr 1 games which I have keeped coming back to over the past 5 years... I have probably spend somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 hours in XCOM 2 alone during the past 18 months since it was released (I am not sure about the actual numbers, since I always play games "offline" when possible). And all this, the reason I come back to these games over and over again, comes compleatly down to the gameplay and mechanics of the games. Most of these games are very "story-lite"... and most of them are in various stages, and different kinds, of "PnP RPG-lite", they all lack in the "roleplaying" (the social stuff) aspect for the most part (which I don't mind at all... because that whole "actor/roleplaying"-aspect of pen and papers rpg's is the part I like the least about pnp rpg's)... but for most of them the general rpg mechanics in them is very close to pnp rpg's in one way or another (be it that your characters can get better at what they do, how combat works, etc). Actually... now that I look at it, all these games I mention here has one factor in common... they all mostly revolve around combat... and combat is in general one of my main favorit aspects of pen and paper rpg's (there are 2-3 other aspect of pnp rpg'ing which is on about the same level for me).


I have to mention though that with these 3 "catagory of games" that I have talked about above... my actual "ranking" between the three kinds is:
Nr 1 - The ones who are very simmilar to pen and paper rpg's (so the one with Fallout 1-2 in it).
Nr 2 - The ones which has a very high emphesis on gameplay and mechanics, the kinds which I replay the most (so the one with XCOM 1 and 2 in it).
Nr 3 - Story, and/or somewhat good conversation options, and/or ARPG's.

I am aware of that this can be a bit confusing... that purelly ranking-wise on my "favorit games list" that games with a really good story + ARPG mechancis place a lot higher then most other kinds of games... and that the games which has the highest emphesis on gameplay mechanics, but can be fairly to very light on the story and "roleplaying" aspect of, and tend to place them selves fairly far down my "favorit games lists", are the ones I play the most... and yet, my favorit type/genre of games fall under the ones where they are extremely close to pen and paper rpg's, and which for the most part place them selves between the two others on my "favorit games lists", which I play more often then the story+ARPG ones, but where I don't come even close to playing them as much as I do the gameplay mechanics ones.

But that's just how it is... not much I can do about this... because these three things, "favorit games", "favorit genre", and "favorit gameplay mechanics" are basicly three different things for me when it comes to videogames. XD


With all this said... I am almost certain that I will still love Cyberpunk 2077 if it ends up being your somewhat standard ARPG (albeit of a higher quality then your average ARPG I would asume, since it is CDPR we are talking about here)... and I will probably spend hundreds of hours in it as well... and I will probably place it very high up my top favorit games list as well. But... if it ends up being an ARPG, then chances are that I will only play it once or thrice at the most... no matter how different the game might be if you play a different role... because the fact that some games have multiple endings, and/or multiple ways to experience the game, matters little to me... because I like to play games a certain way, and will rather replay in the same way, then play in another way. For example, I don't like playing mages, so as such I would never see a games story from the perspective of a mage... nore would it be very likely that I would see Cyberpunk 2077 through the eyes of a Rocker or a Fixer or something.

No give me a warrior with a sword, shield, and heavy plate armor for a medieval and/or Fantasy game... and a soldier'ish type of a character with some kind of rifle that I can snipe with, and potentually some heavy armor as well, in a modern and/or sci-fi setting... and you will find a happy camper... ... if I had my computer that is... I don't really care all that much for camping in real life... XD

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.


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...
Sardukhar;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.
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). XD
 
Last edited:
Games focused on gameplay sell more than those focused on story. Story is for one time runners, gameplay is what makes the experience fun. No wonder why gameplay focused games have greater hours per player spent than those focused on story.

The market always dictates what is right, and the current gaming market is in favor of gameplay.


kofeiiniturpa;n9294581 said:
Your take otherwise sounds like that of a marketing analyst or a lobbyist.

That's what I do.

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.

Companies should focus on both new and oldschool gaming innovations, but without focusing more on oldschool design implementations just for the sake of them being oldschool, and instead these companies should worry more about what's a good idea and what isn't.

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.

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.

Casuals are the majority, so if a company wants to make money they care about them too.


Meccanical;n9295271 said:
Or we using gameplay and combat interchangeably again?

>gameplay aspects during cutscenes is basically quick time events

Aren't new ideas scary?
 
Last edited:
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 ).
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Well yeah, it's definitely going to be an RPG with action in it, it's Cyberpunk, the last canonical event of the game was global corporate war being fought with all kinds of nasty technology. Conflict is pretty much unavoidable, but all I'm hoping is that there is a lot of leeway in how you go about surviving in this world.

 
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?
Diablo 3.

I think that some games view focusing on one aspect, either gameplay or story, and ignoring the other aspect, as some sort of feature in there intellectual property.
I love Serious Sam but if all games were like Serious Sam then I'd be hungering for something else.

I feel that not focusing on both is a missed opportunity, having good gameplay shouldn't limit story and vice versa.

The question that pops up is when one is in conflict with the other, which should win out, story, or gameplay.
I feel the answer is whatever feels most cohesive to the title, not necessarily always choosing one or the other.






 
And now, a vote of encouragement for the folks at CDPR: (Pulls speech from a rather scarred up, bullet ridden, battered briefcase. It is covered with coffee stains, blood from an army of street scum and the ink has run in certain places where the speech writer has spontaneously burst into tears of joy and anticipation for the game release date) and, clearing nicotine laced phlem from his haggard throat, the disheveled old gaming vet begins to speak: " Ladies and gentlemen of the CDPR crew, I come to you a humble man." I am humbled because many people have sought to create a truly Cyberpunk epic... None have succeeded. You have been given a perilous task of bringing a legendary RPG to life. An RPG that, sadly, has never been given the credit that is it's due. You have chosen to do this thing not because it is a simple thing or a mere trifle, but because it IS a hard thing...But know this, and I can only speak for myself and a few others: "WE BELIEVE IN YOU! Our gunmetal dreams and laser sight hopes we place with confidence in your capable hands. And WE BELIEVE that along with the guidance of THE O.G of Cyberpunk, Mike Pondsmith, you will lead we who wait with bated breath from the wastes on anticipation to The CYBERPUNK PROMISED LAND!!!! Can I get an "AMEN"! Can I get an "AWOMAN", TOO...Gotta keep it equal, folks."
 
Number 1 important thing is that core gameplay/systems foundation is coherent and compatible with one another/setting/etc across the board.
If you wildly change your design goals here from one entry to another, result is ( nearly) always : two steps forward, two steps back.
This is where Witcher suffered the most, you can see this in other series ( like with Dragon Age)...opposite examples such as Souls series, where developers held to same vision, but slowly improved with each entry (tracing all the way back from King's Field).

Is action gameplay emphasizing speed and quick reaction?...then controls need to be designed around precision and responsiveness above all else.
Does it take place in open world/sandbox? Gameplay should have "organic" transition between different states, level design that doesn't highlight Combat Arena!, include interaction with the world and emergent/non scripted scenarios as vital part of gameplay and no artificial restrictions ( like invisible enemy aggro force fields), etc.
Massive game length? No soft lock system/auto aim, higher skill ceiling.
Is world economy tied to morality system? Strict inventory system or low quantity/handplaced world objects.
Etc, etc...
 
Yep, the game systems CDPR decides to use will be critical. If they go for a deep story driven game but the combat is the same as your typical FPS shooter they'll have created a situation where there's a near total disconnect between two major elements of the game.
 
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.

I won't, but I do also think it gets it bit more shit than it deserves precisely due to having raised the expectations to unreasonable levels and then not being even close to meeting them. If it had not done that, it'd still been a disappointment but not nearly as bad as it feels now.

But the stories weren't as bad to clarify them as trash.

If the stories by themselves are irrelevant or close enough to that, it makes little difference to being trash. Only thing missing is the effect of offence with that comes with something actually bad.

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?

It is fairer. Obviously. There's no bias or doubt, or favoritism, hesitation or error in dicerolls.

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?

No, I don't. And I'm not telling you how to play games with your friends, nor saying "take the boot off your head, you're doing it wrong". But it does sound like gameplay has been switched to wordplay.

What do you think a themed socialized event like a Monopoly night is?

Unless you threw the board, cards, dice, and playmoney away, dressed up and had your dedicated banker tell you a story about real estate businessmen and -women on a competitive mission to own a lot of streets to drive each other out of business while asking you for input every now and then... I'm inclined to think you'd play Monopoly with your friends.

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.

You can romanticize them, but that doesn't remove the fact that the core storylines in those games (when looked in isolation) is very rudimentary. And having to do that only enforces the idea. And I say this while regarding no other game above those two.

They were designed with gameplay in mind. And through that gameplay you get the spark for the stories that get told. There is no "story first" or "combat first" mentality or anything like that, just varying levels of interaction through gameplay. And that's what puts those games head and shoulders above others. PST can go shame in a corner for not giving the gameplay side the same treatment as it did for its storyline, ToEE can also for only focusing on combat.

In the end, all your system is is either a clumsy replication of the real world, or an arbitrary construction of the designer,

So what?
That is the game. The level of sophistication varies, but that is the game to play. The fun comes not only from the GM telling you a story and asking if you wish to enter the bar or the shop, but the interaction between the narrative and the gameplay. What you call clumsy and arbitrary is the game in your roleplaying game. You can house rule it all out if you wish, but all you have left is a "if you do X jump to page 15" type story.

Calistarius;n9296261 said:
I am more on kofeiiniturpa side here...

Finally. Thank you. I was starting to think I'm the ugly duckling around here.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9297121 said:
but without focusing more on oldschool design implementations just for the sake of them being oldschool

Of course not "oldschool for the sake of oldschool", but for the sake of what is there to be used.

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.

It sounds to me like what was already done, and it led to doing the opposite... With their mouths sweet with "casual" easy money, luring "hardcores" (I don't like to use those terms, by the way) to buy shit games with deceitful marketing speak that's not really a lie, but not the whole truth either.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.

And I think I know part of the reason for that... which is: If the game can not keep my interests during the periods of time where the story is not really going on, so when your out running from place to place, combat, or grinding, or what ever... you know, the part which actually always tends to takes up the majority of your time in most rpg's, since the actual story aspect of most rpg's tend to take up a much smaller amount of time then the other stuff does (would be surprices if most games story took up more then 1-10% of the total gametime... unless it's a Hideo Kojima game, then I would be surpriced if less then 90% of the total was on the story... XD (for the unenlightened, that is a joke about how most of Hideo Kojimas games tend to have really long cutscenes... his game "Metal Gear Solid 4" holds the Guinness world record for the longest cutscene in a game ever, 27 minuts long... it also holds the record for "Longest cutscene sequence in a video game ever" as well, with 4 consequtive cutscenes that together comes up to 71 minutes (where the 27min one is one of them)... XD ))... anway, as I said... if the game can not keep me interested during those times between each story element, then there might be a big chance I actually never finish the game. That is partly why I have so far never finished any Elder Scrolls games (heck... even though I have played two characters at 150+ hours each in Skyrim, none of them have goten very far on the main story line at all... the first one had not even talked to the Greybeards yet, and the second one had talked to them and goten his first quests from them that takes place outside of their mountains) Much of this does also come down to how I play games, in what order I prefer to do things (first everything else, then the main story last, and then move on to the next area and repeat that process... comes from my JRPG routes in gaming I think, it started with finding Final Fantasy VII... and it's my nature as well), and that I don't like to leave things behind me undone, etc.

And that is not because I somehow felt the story was bad or anything in Skyrim, I liked what I saw (and knew of) and everything... but if I have not finished a game by the time I reach about 100+ hours, then I run the risk of eventually stepping away from the game to never finish that particular run of the game (or the game in general). Because around 100 hours is where the feeling of needing to play something else starts to creep up on me, where I have played that game so much (usually in a very short period of time as well... I could pretty easily reach those 100 hours in a week actually... one of the upsides to being unemployed... XD ), that I feel a need to play something else. And once that happens, then chances are it might take me a long time untill I get back to that same game again (often it can takes multple years, atleast for the games which are very story heavy, and with gameplay mechanics which are not with the kinds I like the most... with games like XCOM2 for example though, where the gameplay mechanics is the major thing about the game, is games which I can come back to again fairly quickly... days to weeks usualy, the longest I have been away from XCOM 2 during these last 18 months is maybe 2 months I think). One thing to consider here though... I do tend to take a lot longer to play games then most people do as well, just due to the fact that I really don't like leaving things behind me, and I will also spend a huge amount of time on just pure grinding if possible (much of which I am not really aware of that I do, my "natural state of grinding" is probably mosts people version of "grind a little"... where as my "I am going to grind a little today" is probably about the same as most other peoples version of "I am going to grind a lot today, spend all day on it actually"... XD ). Unfortunatly, once I do finally get back to these story heavy, gameplay mechanics lite types of game (or not the kind I prefer... although, it can happen even in games where I really do like the gameplay mechanics... like Dragon Age Origins, still not finished it, even though I have played two identical characters for well over 150 hours each, both where stopped at the same exact moment as well, that being where I had done everything you could possibly do befor going to the Landsmeet (which I have not gone to yet with either character)), games like Skyrim, it has usually been so long ago the last time I played it, that I feel that I would need to start over from the beginning instead of continuing where I left of. That is why I have two characters in Skyrim which I have played over 150 hours (and those two in DAO with their 150+ hours as well), because once I came back to the game again I felt I needed to start over... and thus starts the vicious cycle over again.

In comparions... I did finish Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3... because the longest it took me to finish any one of them was about 90 hours I think. I have not finished Mass Effect Andromeda though, and I do really like that game as well (just like I liked 1-3)... but the reason I have not finished it is because it is a much longer game for me then ME1-3 was. I have so far spent just over 111 hours in MEA, and I have only finished a little over 1/3rd of the available planets that you can go to (only one of them is at 100% for me, the deasert one)... I have not played the game since late April though.

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.
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.

With movies I do rewatch things more often, but even here some movies might only get rewatched once every 10 years or so. But with movies there are some of them which I rewatch a lot more often that is common for me. Every single movie I have seen in the cinema, I saw again as soon as they came out on blu-ray (because I only watch movies in cinema that I know I will really like)... all the Marvel movies are also movies which I tend to rewatch a whole lot more often then almost all other movies (Marvel was something I always wanted the most to be turned into movies and tv-series, because I became a huge Marvel fan in the early 90's... would like to see some Image comic movies/tv-series as well (we have goten some atleast... the Spawn animated series is REALLY good for example)... was never a fan of DC comics though (I still like the movies and tv-series which I do watch, so no problem there, I just never felt any of the DC characters where interesting enough to read the comics of... because even though I like the DC movies and tv-series, they don't change my opinion on the matter when it comes to their Comics... just as the Avenger movied don't really make me want to read the Avengers comics (or those individual characters comics)... I am an Death's Head (especialy version I and II of him), Wolverine, X-Men, Spider-Man, and a few others, -type of a guy when it comes to Marvel).

So yeah... things need to be relevent to my interests for me to eventually rewatch something... but even more then that, they have to be "extremely relevent to my interests", for me to rewatch things a lot more often.

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.
So this should sort of mean that you compleatly understand what I am saying about how importent gameplay and game mechanics are?

Because if you do put a lot more hours into those grand strategy games then any other kind that you play, then that would be about the same as how it is for me (except with other games, I have played some grand stratagy games, but parts of those games don't really interest me as much... like diplomacy and such stuff... XD )... because most of Paradox games (and most games of that nature) are built around gameplay and game mechanics. They have story in them of course, but most of it is in a somewhat basic level, and it is more so that you your self build the story based on what you do or do not do, rather then the game giving you the story like how it is in most ARPG's... those games, and their stories, are what you make out of them on top of the gameplay and mechanics.

Just as how it is for me when I play something like XCOM 2... where the game gives you a basic premis, and a basic story, and then what happends in the game comes down to what you do, and to the random nature of how things can go down in those games... where you can have an absolutly triumphans story against all odds where your guys somehow survived a shitstorm of a mission, or a swift kick to the balls that brings you back to reality where your team comes back defeated and severely decimated from their latest failed mission. That is the part I love about these games types of stories, that you do not really rely on on-rails story telling like most ARPG's stories are... and yeah, sure, many ARPG's (and pnp rpg like rpg's as well), might have many different outcomes at various stages of the games, multiple endings, etc... but on a second playthrough you will for the most part realize that most of the choices you have in them don't really matter to much towards the end of the game in all that many significant ways... especialy amongst ARPG's.


With all this said about games and movies and tv-series though... I still don't understand compleatly why I can re-read my favorit fantasy books over and over again though... I mean if I do not remember it wrong, I have re-read David Eddings book series "The Belgariad" over 15 times since I found it back in 1992 I think it was... with the followup "The Mallorean" series being read 1 time less then the Belgariad one... and the two sidebooks of Belgarath and Polgara a few more times less then that (depends on when they came out and all)... and Eddings other series "The Elenium" and "The Tamuli" having been read one time less then "The Mallorean". Most of the other fantasy book series I like have also been re-read a large amount of time as well. And I can't really explain it, why it is this way with books, but where it is not the same with movies or tv-series, or story heavy videogames. It is really strange I find. XD



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.
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.

Think Dragon Age Origins is one of the last games of that older "True-RPG" nature that was essentually a AAA-titel. And then they went and made it into a AAA-ARPG type of a game instead with DA2 and inquisition... despite the fact that DAO succeeded on the merits of the type of game it actually was, a "True RPG". Luckily we do get these types of "True-RPG's" again, thanks to things like Indie developers, and kickstarter, etc. But none of the big gaming companies do these games anymore, and really, with the exception of DAO, none has done these kinds of games since the early 00's... the genre was almost dead when DAO came around in 2009... and then in 2012 "XCOM: Enemy Unknown" came around to show that even turnbased combat still had a role to play in major games, followed by the slew of successful kickstarter RPG games. XCOM is of course not a rpg, it has at most RPG elements in it... but it still showed that turnbased combat can be a selling point.

Anyway... like I have said, I do still think that CP2077 will be some kind of ARPG, and I will probably like it a lot as well if it is. And that I would still wish it was another kind of RPG game, since I feel we get to few AAA versions of those types of RPG's that I would love to get to play more of.

But... either way... I will still be really happy with CP2077... because this game will fill another particular genre which I have always felt was highly under-represented in the gaming industry... and that genre being the "Sci-Fi RPG" genre. And I don't neccessarily count Fallout, at most I half-count it... yes, Fallout is sci-fi... but it is not the Mass Effect kind of sci-fi, the Star Trek/Wars type of sci-fi, the Blade Runner type of sci-fi, the Deus Ex type of sci-fi, and other such high technology type of sci-fi. We almost never get to see these kinds of sci-fi rpg's... we seldomly see them in the ARPG kind (With Mass Effect and Deus Ex being some of them)... and especially in the "true RPG" kind of games we get to see even fewer of them (the last one was probably the new Shadowrun games I think), which is again partly why I have been so adamant about these gameplay and game mechanics things when it has come to CP2077, since I don't really see a lot of other gaming devs out there making sci-fi rpg's that I would like to play. Usually the closest thing we get to this is games like XCOM, or Rimworld, or Dawn of War 2 (which is my favorit of the entire series), where none of them are actual RPG's to begin with... XD
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9301761 said:
Finally. Thank you. I was starting to think I'm the ugly duckling around here.
Heh... XD

When it comes to your stance on gameplay and game mechanics I compleatly am behind you... that those are the things that make some of us come back to play some games over and over again. Where the story, and especially if it is a good story, is a really nice bonus on top of it all. XD Or that it is what keeps us playing a game so that we can get from story element to story element... since for the most part all the story stuff tends to be a fairly small minority out of the entire gametime length that you spend in most games... as I said in my new overly big posts that I just posted, the gameplay and game mechanics helps with keeping people playing in all that time inbetween the story fixes that we get every now and then in most games. XD

There are of course other things that you and I do not agree on really... like what is good or not in certain aspect, what a good story is, or what a good mechanics is, which games are good or not, and some of the details of the things we do in general seem to agree on. But atleast on the aspect of gameplay, game mechanics, and that "old school RPG's style" of these things is not something to just be discarded because most of todays gamers don't like them or think they are to difficult or complex or something... atleast on those things, we for the most part seem to be on roughly the same page. XD
 
Calistarius;n9302101 said:
There are of course other things that you and I do not agree on really...

Of course. There's always something, and that's a good thing. There's something to talk about and perhaps even learn, constant backpatting is the worst form of discussion.

I don't remember any drastic disagreements, though. But you might've not just made them known yet.
 
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

Great! Nice thing is that the RPG is the genre that come closest to a real life simulation. Immersiveness is about that, to keep things level grounded to our reality, that doens't mean to make things real or close to our modern culture, but to make things emotionally believable.
 
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?
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.

Also, I don't think being able to play something a lot is equal to thinking it is the best. I would put the ME Trilogy and TW3 ahead of CKII on my all time list ... even though I've played CKII more. Replay-ability is important, but it isn't everything.
 
Last edited:
The thing a lot of people seem to miss is certain types of game mechanics work well/best with certain types of games.

Look at XCom, given you control your entire squad and the order you take certain actions in can be every bit as important as the actions themselves how could it possibly be anything but turn-based? Such a game is designed around it's combat mechanics, and this is how it should be. You can't just use whatever mechanics happen to be popular this week. This is why I find those that demand any and every game include (or exclude) certain game mechanics amusing. It's blindingly obvious they have no clue how games should be designed and think their favorite systems are all that's necessary to make a game good/successful. And, yes, some game publishers make this same mistake, then can't seem to figure out why their game that includes all the popular systems falls flat on its face.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9299931 said:

That is a 4 year old..rumour. Based on early production plans.

So, pretty much of no value.

All, ALL CDPR plans for CPunk are to be taken with a grain of salt, other than it's Cyberpunk 2020 based, it's role-playing and...hm. That's actually pretty much it.

Because everything else can and may have changed during production. Which has a ways to go yet, allowing for more changes.

I still like,

"Come for the story.

Stay for the gameplay."

As an ethos of design for CPunk.

Also this is OT from Romance! Moving.
 
Top Bottom