The Campaign Builder's Guild

VIDEO
For a moment, I was confused about genders...get past that and watch this. This Kat really calls the Bethesda guy out on some stuff.

It upsets me that Ashley claims that people play as a fighter OR a mage OR a thief. One of the fun things about this sort of game is that you're not restricted to classes like that.

She asks about vampires. His voice says he can't talk about it but his face says, "YES".

No riding dragons. :( "The dragons are these beautiful, phenomenal creatures...and you're going to kill a lot of them."

"Over 50 beards. Tons of beards." I want all the beards at once. I WILL BE THE VIKING GOD OF FACIAL HAIR.

Oh yeah, if you guys hadn't heard yet, the Doom Stones actually do something now. You can apparently change your birth sign with them...which doesn't make sense but oh well, these games have talking cats.

It seemed to me that Bethesda was trying to dumb everything down game after game until we would finally be left with something like that Star Wars connect game where you pretend you're a crippled person with a lightsaber and enemies throw themselves on you to die...but the more I read and see of Skyrim, the more I think it looks like it could really be a damn good game and an actual improvement over Oblivion.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that I did not actually like Oblivion-- and try as I might to LIKE the Elder Scroll Games, I find myself bored and frustrated with them after only a few short hours, so I tend to leave them be and never go back to them.

Skyrim's changes, however, have me much more hopeful that it will be a game that I may actually want to continue playing. Kind of like the Witcher 2. I love the writing and the atmosphere of the game, but I find the combat system so beyond terrible that I /ragequit it so hard that I actually uninstalled it as a result. Oblivion was the same, just for different reasons. I hope that Skyrim does not prove to be of the same nature.

I think Red Dead Redemption and Arkham Asylum both make better rpgs than Oblivion, and they aren't even rpgs. Both games thoroughly invest the protagonist and therefore the player in the world through their abilities and motivations.

One of the principle weaknesses of rpgs where you can invent your character from the ground up is that it places profound limitations on the game's writing. There are no "save your daughter"/"protect your family villa"/"conspire against your long-time ally" plots, because who's to say if the character has a daughter, or a villa, or any long-time allies?

Compare with the plot of the Witcher 2, where the major NPCs know who and what you are and how to manipulate you. You (Geralt) in turn are given the sort of opportunities for compromise and alliance and betrayal that are consistent with the identity that is established from the outset.

Plot-heavy rpgs would benifit from a selection of such predetermined, fleshed out protagonists (I figure three is an intuitive, manageable standard). The narrative choices, then, would be the sort that a given character could conceivably make. You don't get to burn down the orphanage and then save the boat full of refugees. Your opportunities reflect your nature and ambitions. It's better for the plot if some character prejudices and predilections are predefined.

ALSO: Conversation time limits. No letting players stew over a response for five minutes while the NPC stares back with patient stupidity. If the king's champion asks you "with whom do you stand?" you've got about a second and a half before he tries to run you through.

Combining this with predefined characters, you have opportunities for mental breakdown, or personal shame, where decisions made in the heat of the moment take their toll on the protagonist's resolve or force actual transformations in self-perception. The gaming industry has more than enough great writers to make this compelling.

This is one of the true gaming evolutions explored in Heavy Rain.

>>
ALSO: Conversation time limits. No letting players stew over a response for five minutes while the NPC stares back with patient stupidity. If the king's champion asks you "with whom do you stand?" you've got about a second and a half before he tries to run you through.

The only reason I'd complain about this is that most gamers are causal--and sometimes you get interrupted or aren't able to pay 100% attention to the game.

e.g. in Mass Effect 2 the instant-actions were neat, but sometimes I'd have to go back to an earlier save because I only noticed the option to do something when it was too late to pull the trigger.

Just imagine this problem raised to the next level. You're in an important conversation...and then the dinner call comes and you don't realize that sometimes the game has a time limit, so you don't go to the menu screen... ... When you come back from dinner, somehow your character is dead.

>>One of the principle weaknesses of rpgs where you can invent your character from the ground up is that it places profound limitations on the game's writing. There are no "save your daughter"/"protect your family villa"/"conspire against your long-time ally" plots, because who's to say if the character has a daughter, or a villa, or any long-time allies?

I agree with that. It reflects back on my earlier comments about annoyances about the weaknesses of many games where you 'start with amnesia/in a dungeon'. Its sort of difficult to define anything or to make anything matter in those games unless the player has a very strong will to make things matter and define thing s for themself.

I like to be able to create my own character, though I understand that writing can be better for games where the character is better defined. I think, for a video game, Dragon Age Origins found the right balance here. Of course, I would take that setup and make it skill based instead of class based, unless class based really works better for the setting.

The problem with games that have a set character, like Mass Effect, is that there are only so many playthrus you can achieve before you wind up re-hashing the same experience. The play-areas of Story-Driven games tend to be much smaller, focusing more on levels and small sections of a world because if you go off the rails too far, then you wind up loosing the core essence of the game - the story. This is where sandbox games like the Elder Scrolls shine - they give you a very large play area and tell you to make up your own story. The weakness of the sandbox, however, is that you wind up with a less emotionally driven in-game story.

I cannot think of a single game that really balanced Open World and Story driven-content very well, most games tend towards one or the other.

QuoteThe only reason I'd complain about this is that most gamers are causal--and sometimes you get interrupted or aren't able to pay 100% attention to the game.

Just imagine this problem raised to the next level. You're in an important conversation...and then the dinner call comes and you don't realize that sometimes the game has a time limit, so you don't go to the menu screen... ... When you come back from dinner, somehow your character is dead.[/quote]The problem with games that have a set character, like Mass Effect, is that there are only so many playthrus you can achieve before you wind up re-hashing the same experience.[/quote]I cannot think of a single game that really balanced Open World and Story driven-content very well, most games tend towards one or the other.[/quote]I like to be able to create my own character, though I understand that writing can be better for games where the character is better defined. I think, for a video game, Dragon Age Origins found the right balance here. Of course, I would take that setup and make it skill based instead of class based, unless class based really works better for the setting.[/quote]A simple matter of different games. This is why I brought up Heavy Rain. This game has split-second choices with immediate consequences and prefabricated characters to act out and be affected by those choices. Heavy Rain was far from perfect, but it was a great exploration of a way rpgs can go that is different than (but not necessarily inherently superior to) Elder Scrolls.

I for on would love a game with no story but remarkable detail in the landscape and mechanics for hunting, tracking, stealth, exploration and combat. Different game. Equally viable.

That game would be best suited for something along the lines of Monster Hunter, where there isn't really usually a plot at all, or an MMORPG. I'd love a game that plays like that sort of MMORPG offline, though. Bonus points if you could play it and build your character alone offline then take it online with other people, like Borderlands.

By way of example, here's an idea I had for an rpg as I was drifting off to sleep a few nights ago:

It's an rpg focusing on one-on-one to three-on-one combat, a la Rob Roy, but filled with all sorts of esoteric and occult moves, so I suppose it's a blend of western swordplay and wuxia combat-sorcery. Every battle is fought against an individual, voiced opponent, and most of the time you will have encountered them before in a non-combat circumstance.

You might, for instance, parlay with a corrupt official but fail to acquire permission for something, so later on when he discovers you transgressing you have to fight him and his son who works beside him. If you kill the father, the son freaks out and flees but swears revenge.

This is of course very conventional.

But what happens later is you encounter the young man again. He's out for blood but he knows how good you are. You can see he's conflicted. Filial duty demands he fight but he's frightened enough that he might be convinced to flee.

So let's say there were three characters to select from at the beginning of the game. One is a man no older than the one here described, a prodigy with a blade  eager to prove his manhood but blind to the true implications of bloodshed. Another is the wife of a murdered swordsman, who takes up her husband's sword to avenge him and their butchered sons. The last is a seasoned killer, known and feared, but secretly embittered by warfare's endless cycle.

These three characters have different responses to the vengeful churl. They might be...

The Prodigy:
'He was in my way. And now you are.' (Starts a fight)
'You've seen what I can do.' (Fails. The young man sees you as an equal, whatever your skill, and for honour's  sake he will not back down)

The Widow:
'I had sons like you.' (Avoids a fight)
'I will fight you if I have to. (Reluctantly concedes and battle begins)

The Veteran:
'This will be a pointless death'
'Come then, boy.'
Surprise Attack (Throws a dagger straight into the boys throat... there will be consequences)

And there might be common options, such as 'he was corrupt!' (doesn't work, it was his father after all).

Immediate choices, personal consequences. The Widow can't just butcher her way through hordes of foolish and impressionable boys. That's the very thing she's trying to avenge! Every life takes its toll. Not so for the Veteran. Perhaps the Prodigy only begins to see the consequences of his killing later down the track, as the kinsmen of the dead are arrayed against him.

EDIT: This kind of gameplay involves a subtly altered perspective. Because the characters are specifically described it is difficult to reconcile them with personal player identity. So we don't. The Prodigy is his own evolving being. You guide his choices, but within the game's narrative they are his choices, not yours.

That might be fine but it couldn't replace a good sandbox game. Really, they should stop trying to make them be the same thing because they're not. They should be allowed to grow naturally in their own directions with different expectations. To me comparing The Elder Scrolls to Mass Effect because they're both called "RPG" is about the same as comparing The Elder Scrolls to a Call of Duty game because they're both meant to be played in first person. Different games are meant to offer different experiences. Creators, in any media, trying to follow any of the established conventions of an established genre can only lead to reduced creativity. (This is especially the case in music.)

Which is just my point. Nobody's talking about replacing. This is specifically concerning the refinement of gaming narrative within the context of rpgs. Perhaps it sounds like a criticism of Elder Scrolls because I'm presenting it in an Elder Scrolls thread.

QuoteTo me comparing The Elder Scrolls to Mass Effect because they're both called "RPG" is about the same as comparing The Elder Scrolls to a Call of Duty game because they're both meant to be played in first person. Different games are meant to offer different experiences.

that[/i] game is in no way an RPG)

As I said, my suggestions are principally about verisimilitude. A more realistic and fluid conversation system could contribute to a more immersive sandbox. In this regard there are advantages to limiting character creation options just as there are disadvantages.

We can even divide the character creation sandbox from setting exploration sandbox. Maybe you can only play as Dave, but you can make Dave an assassin or a stormtrooper or a psionic berserker, but no matter what you choose he always hates spaghetti and loves redheads. Still a potential sandbox, just with different parameters.

Just food for thought. We all want new and original games, after all. :)

Quote from: please DO NOT feed the eyeballWe can even divide the character creation sandbox from setting exploration sandbox. Maybe you can only play as Dave, but you can make Dave an assassin or a stormtrooper or a psionic berserker, but no matter what you choose he always hates spaghetti and loves redheads. Still a potential sandbox, just with different parameters.

Two Worlds is exactly this.

Is it a good game?

I really liked it, even though it was really cheesey. It was not very popular in the United States (we almost didn't get the sequel) but it's huge and popular in most of the rest of the world.