[theoretical question] what kind of an RPG would you prefer?

[hivemind]

I wonder what the general thoughts about how games and RPGs should look like are among Codexers so I offer this mental exercise to you

If you had to choose between;

a very linear RPG with a plot of great quality(something like monte christo, but better !) but with almost no real plot C&C and very strong narrative railroading

or

an RPG with a mediocre to slightly bad(something like a Friday night movie on the telly or a semi-generic fantasy novel) writing and general plot structure but with insane interactivity and well developed C&C, with every choice(of which there would be plenty) having great impact on the story

now just to clarify the first RPG would not necessarily have to be a "cinematic experience" the rigid and non-interactive characteristic would remain strictly in the narrative dimension.

also pls share your thoughts and reasons for your vote

 

[Elim]

The RPG with great gameplay and deep character customization + great combat.

If I want a good story I read a book. If I want C&C I go play pen and paper.

 

[Excidium II]

How is this even a real choice? Being linear and railroaded is the worst thing that can happen on a CRPG.

 

[mondblut]

Assuming anything could salvage "very strong narrative railroading" into something digestible is preposterious.

 

[Atchodas]

one with Open World and good systems where you make your own story by interacting with the world

 

[Neanderthal]

I picked the latter because interactivity is the strength of the medium, but in a sense i'm a fucking hypocrite because I love me some Legacy of Kain, though that's not really an RPG I think, more a fighting and cutscene simulator. LoK i'd rather play than watch many movies or read some books though.

Thing is I hate cutscenes deciding the outcome of the game, no matter what you've done: Deus Ex:HR comes to mind where you become an idiot in cinematics or the Witcher 2 having the Letho fight turn out the same no matter your performance.

 

[Diggfinger]

Games should be *fun* to play, first and foremost. An interesting story is an added plus, but not the nucleus of the experience (if I want a good story I read a book).

Good RPG for me =
- Classless, skill-based character development
- Open world exploration, flexible quest-structure
- (isometric viewpoint)
- Fun combat - and lots of it!- preferably turn-based, but like RTWP as well.

So yeah…games fitting those categories are basically Fallout, Arcanum, Underrail and Serpent in the Staglands. Might and Magic and Bloodlines are awesome too, fulfilling the essential requirements.

- Digg

 

[Shadenuat]

A story with insane interactivity where your every choice matters can't be bad or not entertaining at least - you need to have special set of writing skills and dedication to achieve that, as well as achieve some milestones like developed NPCs

 

[Kem0sabe]

An rpg not developed by:

Obsidian
Inxile
Bioware
All the shovelware German and French developers
Them cinematic potatoes

The little incline we have is coming from indie developers who are chasing their dream rpgs.

 

[Vikter]

I would rather play a linear action game with good story that considers itself an RPG than a messy RPG with terrible story.
The linear one would be the better game and the other would be the better RPG, from my point of view.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

So, basically, KOTOR2 or Way of the Samurai?

One of these games is part of a fun, goofy series that I've sunk probably a couple hundred hours into, playing around with reactivity and the combat system. The other is a remarkable story, with one of the best antagonists in gaming, that's an absolute chore to play, taking little advantage of the medium's strengths.

Pretty easy victory for the high reactivity.

 

[Goblino]

C&C hands down. I don't sit here and operate my computer for hours on end just to see what some hack and his idiot fans think is brilliant writing. I play games to see how the game reacts to me and how I can impose myself on the game. I suck off the Gothic games a lot and I'll do so briefly here. Yeah C&C is shallow in Gothic games and story is like an old pulp fiction, but dammit, those games react to the player's behavior and get you invested through gameplay opportunity and challenges, not because your party member waited til act three to tell you she had been raped and that you should kill the villain that much harder cause he's a bastard. Games should definitely work for great writing and characters, but I have a deeper connection to Diego, and Xardas because they gave me opportunity as a player to explore and play in new ways. Reading is boring and the best stories in games are the ones that emerge from gameplay and what you see happening to the world. Listen to me I'm so smart and my opinion is important.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Well written. If I want mediocre writing C&C, I troll the internet.

 

[octavius]

C&C, baby. If I want well written, I read a book.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

Story. C&C is cool but I wouldn't enjoyed myself enough having shitty story so I wouldn't be able to profit from it.

 

[Tigranes]

Well written comes first. That said, if the C&C game is structured so that the writing is not foregrounded, then it wins by a mile. (e.g. a King's Bounty like game with Russianiglish would not matter if the C&C occurred robustly at the mechanics level)

 

[Apexeon]

Currently Indies are giving me what I want.

Underrail is lining up as my GOTY (my game of the year award is currently worth 25.52 cents).
Apexeon approved must buy.

- Isometric (I am a fanboy)
- Classless
- Open world
- C&C

Story --> go read a book.

POE has taken a trip to the recycle bin (along with its rubbish concept art, I paid $50 for a couple of extra pictures).
**** its boring story and dead boring combat. The only thing it did good was make some good isometric maps to look at.

 

[Night Goat]

I hate generic fantasy shit, but I chose the C&C-heavy one because I want to see what that would even be like.

 

[laclongquan]

Gameplay, of course~

The problem of wellwritten but linear game is that once you finish it, you have no need to replay. Unless you like to read shits again, in which case you should go find books, not play games.

Writting quality is always of secondary importance in a game. Nice to have, but not essential.

 

[Irenaeus II]

I hate generic fantasy shit, but I chose the C&C-heavy one because I want to see what that would even be like.

mediocre

Like the games you like.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

People seems to answer C&C by equating it with gameplay. I personally chose story over C&C, but I would also choose gameplay over story. Either people are misunderstanding the initial question or the initial question is not properly asked.

 

[Irenaeus II]

It was a silly question to begin with. Like I said, internet is full of mediocre writing C&C.

 

[I'm Big Into Anal]

Spoiler

gameplay tbh; story i can give or take

Spoiler

risen

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Where's kingcomrade option?
These choices really boil down to question "Would you rather eat bucket full of shit or drink bucket full of piss".

 

[hivemind]

Where's kingcomrade option?
These choices really boil down to question "Would you rather eat bucket full of shit or drink bucket full of piss".

The point of this thread is to figure out who are the shit eaters and who are the piss drinkers.