It was a pretty terrible joke, but I'll be back to joke again! Though if his goal was to use ZERO punctuation... he shouldn't have used parenthasis.
This, to me, is what Darthracoon later called "immersion". It's something that was, on the whole, missing until THAT game came along (Baldur's Gate I mean BTW). Even the likes of Arena and the Ultima episodes didn't quite have IT to the same extent (IMO, anyway).PedroSteckecilo post=9.69772.670857 said:I like RPG's for their Story, Length and Depth and only occasionally for their gameplay. Call me old fashioned but I read a lot, and having RPG's which are like playable, somewhat interactive novels kicks ass.
Sandbox games, right? Go anywhere, do anything and it becomes a toy where the only purpose is to fiddle with it. 'Immersion' and narrative go right out the window.j-e-f-f-e-r-s post=9.69772.671436 said:- Allowing players the freedom to go and massacre villagers and loot their bodies sounds cool on paper, but in reality it never plays out. In the end, all that happens is the player gets bored and starts to use the gameworld as a sort of playbox. It happens in Morrowind, in Fable. The game is no longer a compelling adventure with you as the main character, and has instead become a virtual experiment. See how many people you can kill before the guards come for you. See how much gold you have to spend at the Temple of Avo in order to reverse your alignment. The game's mechanics cease to become integral parts of the game's narrative, and instead become the bunsen burner and the steel tongs with which you try to bend the game's rules to breaking point. In any other genre this would be fine, but in RPGs you are supposed to play a 'role'. You have a character to play, one who has to fit into the gameworld. In Fable, I could go on a killing spree, then simply buy my virtue back and walk into any town to see people applauding my approach. How the heck does that fit into the game's narrative?
QFT. An RPG is a two way experience, it's not all just given to you on a silver platter with a side of chips, you actually have to ROLEPLAY, create a character and act how said character would in the situations the game throws at you. Again, D&D is king. If your character is a homicidal sociopath, go for it, but don't expect the villagers to leave mints on your pillow.j-e-f-f-e-r-s post=9.69772.671436 said:A fine argument
Lewrawen post=9.69772.670876 said:While an RPG is obviously story based, this needs to be used to make the story driven by more than just the one character you walk around with.
Take you're FF7, at what point was say, Tifa absolutely neccesary to the plot? She was there to look good and be a choice for Cloud, she was unique but needless. (I'll probably get corrected on this point but meh)
The point I'm getting at here is, character's need depth which is getting harder to find outside of the FF series (irony).
Also, enemies need to be more original than dragons,ogres and golems of lava.
Tamrhind post=9.69772.671336 said:This, to me, is what Darthracoon later called "immersion". It's something that was, on the whole, missing until THAT game came along (Baldur's Gate I mean BTW). Even the likes of Arena and the Ultima episodes didn't quite have IT to the same extent (IMO, anyway).PedroSteckecilo post=9.69772.670857 said:I like RPG's for their Story, Length and Depth and only occasionally for their gameplay. Call me old fashioned but I read a lot, and having RPG's which are like playable, somewhat interactive novels kicks ass.
Blindly following the D&D formula is exactly what makes so many RPG video games (not to mention pen-and-paper RPGs) absolute crap.LewsTherin post=9.69772.671787 said:Again, D&D is king.