Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

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

Which one of them would you consider a better game?

  • The well written linear RPG

  • The C&C heavy RPG with mediocre writing


Results are only viewable after voting.

Trip

Learned
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
127
'Oh if you kill the bandits, slay their lord, they stop spawning.' 'If you help this Lady X instead of Mr Y or Lord Z, it will lead to absence of Y & Z in next scene.'

These are not really skillfully written C&C. And yeah, they do take writing skill too. So does this count to the "good writing" quota? I'd even argue that writing C&C takes a lot more plotting and character-writing skill than a linear story.
 

RK47

collides like two planets pulled by gravity
Patron
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
28,396
Location
Not Here
Dead State Divinity: Original Sin
'Oh if you kill the bandits, slay their lord, they stop spawning.' 'If you help this Lady X instead of Mr Y or Lord Z, it will lead to absence of Y & Z in next scene.'

These are not really skillfully written C&C. And yeah, they do take writing skill too. So does this count to the "good writing" quota? I'd even argue that writing C&C takes a lot more plotting and character-writing skill than a linear story.

Give me a well-written C&C game and I'll take it any day.
But the choice is simply: Well-written Linear Game or Badly written C&C-laden game.
Well, if you ask me to choose a game to get on Steam right now, I'd take the former.
 

Trip

Learned
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
127
Give me a well-written C&C game and I'll take it any day.

As I wrote at the end of the previous page, "good writing" is - as far as I can see, - something that people here can't even begin to discuss the elements of, let alone agree on. (How about good C&C-rich writing? Shouldn't it be a bit different than good linear writing, whatever that is?) Otherwise I agree that linear stuff is better developed currently so the average quality there is (likely) better.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,567
c&c any day, I want to play a game, not watch a fucking movie. The argument that it takes subsequent playthroughs to have c&c be meaningful is bullshit, Fallout: New Vegas's freedom of choice is immediately obvious, and immediately rewarding.
A good game will let you know when you're making a choice.

The "Cinematic storyfag experience" is a cancer to the CRPG genre, choice is a uniquely game experience, limiting player choice to provide a better narrative experience(Fallout 4's shit promise) is an absolute negative.
 

Maschtervoz

Learned
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
106
I think a lot of people in this thread read linear and jump straight into thinking of a corridor with cutscenes, when the op clearly states that the linearity is strictly plot-related. With this definition in mind, consider a game like Gothic. The only choice in the game is joining a camp in the first act, and it ends up affecting absolutely fucking nothing in the grand scheme of things. Whatever you do, the story will progress the exact same way every time: you are always sent to help with invoking the Sleeper, Y'Berion always dies, Gomez always goes batshit and kills the Fire Mages, etc. Still, the way the game actually plays is far from being a movie, and I don't know about you, fags, but I would definitely sacrifice my firstborn for a Gothic clone but with Torment tier writing.

Sure, a well written game with lots of C&C is always going to be superior, but still, there is no reason to immediately discard anything that doesn't involve over 200 endings.
 

Trip

Learned
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
127
Sure, a well written game with lots of C&C is always going to be superior, but still, there is no reason to immediately discard anything that doesn't involve over 200 endings.

I'd even say that plot divergence isn't really that good a thing. It's what happens on the "scene" level, the more fine-grained interactions, that brings the most value for me.
 

AW8

Arcane
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
1,852
Location
North of Poland
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
The well-written linear story is fun to go through at least once, the mediocre to slightly bad story with insane interactivity is never fun to go through.

The best story is obviously one of good quality AND numerous C&C, but in this example I'd pick the first option, no contest.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
49
Location
Potatoland
Divinity: Original Sin 2
People in general, would not know if a game is linear or not till they played and replayed the game to find out if their choices meant anything.
The first game is harmless. I really love a game that impress me with its writing, while it's unfortunate it is giving illusion of choices, you are generally unaware of the fact until you reload or replay the game. That's fine. It's alright. At least I'm not constantly bombarded by terrible writing that made me laugh at the story inconsistencies. The second round, I'd probably complain at the illusion of choice but at least the first run is thoroughly enjoyable.

C&C with terrible writing? I'd be bothered constantly by this, screaming and bitching till the end, I'd find the occasional C&C situations where I'm temporarily pleased with the outcome - but once it's over, I don't think I'll look fondly on the whole game experience. Reminds me of the C&C argument people presented in defense of DA:Inquisition. 'Oh if you kill the bandits, slay their lord, they stop spawning.' 'If you help this Lady X instead of Mr Y or Lord Z, it will lead to absence of Y & Z in next scene.'

Not really. If I choose option B and then I'm forced into something that looks like option's A outcome, then I know it's linear. Two extremely different actions don't produce the same reaction - assasinating a king should never have the same outcome as proving the king is insane and replacing him with close, more lenient relative - both of those options result in king being excluded from the equation, but there is more to it: assasination should involve martial law or some serious repercussions, enhanced defence... or something; replacing him by someone else could result in serious changes throughout the kingdom - from economy to law - maybe some of subjects start rebellion?,... maybe he's a pussy and neighbours will see this as an opportunity for new lands? C&C only skin-deep is not a C&C, it's a cut-scene asset switch.
It's even worse when the abomination called "dialogue wheel" has the only real influence over the story - and presented options have almost nothing to do with C&C (ME, DA, crap).

I love Troma movies, there's some acknowledgment of terrible writing in there, acting... and generally everything that defines a good story, that's fine, especially if there is one or two dialogue/plot twist gems, hidden very, very deep. More mature movies filled with symbols and whatnot that try to speak about serious matters, usually end up patronizing, pompous, cliche crap I cannot stomach. My "writing standards" are way too high, at some point I simply stopped having any writing requirements.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,567
I think a lot of people in this thread read linear and jump straight into thinking of a corridor with cutscenes, when the op clearly states that the linearity is strictly plot-related. With this definition in mind, consider a game like Gothic. The only choice in the game is joining a camp in the first act, and it ends up affecting absolutely fucking nothing in the grand scheme of things. Whatever you do, the story will progress the exact same way every time: you are always sent to help with invoking the Sleeper, Y'Berion always dies, Gomez always goes batshit and kills the Fire Mages, etc. Still, the way the game actually plays is far from being a movie, and I don't know about you, fags, but I would definitely sacrifice my firstborn for a Gothic clone but with Torment tier writing.

Sure, a well written game with lots of C&C is always going to be superior, but still, there is no reason to immediately discard anything that doesn't involve over 200 endings.
No, I don't think they are, I think for everyone it's pretty clear that the question is about the narrative, and has nothing to do with gameplay.(Thus bringing it into the argument is pointless.)
The game itself obviously doesn't play like a movie, but the narrative does, just a shitty disjointed movie with awful pacing and at it's best "good for video game" writing.

The real thing that a lot of people are doing that's wrong is equating c&c with endings. So many arguments relating to the replay aspect, and how linear games are at least fun the first time, blah, load of shit. C&c is as much in the moment as story, and interacting with the game world at a narrative level as well as a system's level is way more fun than the best video game story.
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
The C&C heavy RPG with mediocre writing.

Why? Because games are suppose to be interactive above all else. Linear stories are in movies.
There is an example of an interactive movie too. If it had done well, there would be a lot more.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/mr-payback-1995
The armrest of your seat contains a little console with red, orange and green buttons. You do a test run, clicking them. The lights go down, the "Interfilm" trademark appears on the screen, and an announcer encourages you to talk, scream, shout and snort during the following film: "Feel free to generally behave as if you were raised in a barn." "Mr. Payback," the first "interactive movie," is supposed to inspire these reactions because you, the lucky audience member, will be able to make key decisions affecting the progress of the story.

The first "interfilm" opens this weekend in 44 specially equipped theaters around the country, and you can see for yourself.

If you feel, for example, that the headmistress of a private school should torture the handcuffed hero with a cattle prod, you will want to push the red button. Other choices include a paddle or a rod. I was for the paddle, but the majority voted for the cattle prod, after which the hero was given electric shocks to the genitals (thankfully below screen level) and then dropped in a dumpster while a subtitle cheerfully assured us that his "family jewels" had survived intact.

I went to see "Mr. Payback" with an open mind. I knew it would not be a "movie" as I understand the word, because movies act on you and absorb you in their stories. An "interfilm," as they call this new medium, is like a cross between a video game and a CD-ROM game, and according to Bob Bejan, president and CEO of Interfilm Inc., "suspension of disbelief comes when you begin to believe you're in control." I never believed I was in control. If I had been in control, I would have ended the projection and advised Bejan to go back to the drawing board. While an interactive movie might in theory be an entertaining experience, "Mr. Payback" was so offensive and yokel-brained that being raised in a barn might almost be required of its audiences.

Few adults are going to find the process bearable. The target audience is possibly children and younger adolescents. That's why I found it surprising that "Mr. Payback" shovels as much barnyard material into its plot as possible.

The movie seems obsessed with scatology: excrement, urination, enemas, loudly passing gas, stepping in dog messes, etc. It also involves a great deal of talk about sexual practices, not to mention every possible rude four-letter word except, to be sure, the ultimate one. The movie bends over backward to be vulgar. It's the kind of film where horrified parents might encourage the kids to shout at the screen, hoping the noise might drown out the flood of garbage.

Hey, I'm not against four letter words - in context, and with a purpose. But why did "Mr. Payback" need to be gratuitously offensive? Nonstop? Knowing there would be young children in the audience? Now what about the process itself? True, you can "influence" events. You sit through the movie once, choosing villains, choosing "paybacks," choosing fates, even choosing celebrity guests (Paul Anka, Ice T) for a final game show.

That takes 20 minutes. Then you're allowed to sit through the movie again, and this time of course you choose different villains, paybacks, etc. In one version, you can force that evil headmistress to be strapped into a leather bondage uniform and walked on all fours. In another version, the villain might be forced to eat monkey brains. Ho, ho.

How are these choices conveyed to the screen? Four laser disc players with various plot choices are standing by in the control booth, and double-brightness video projectors are suspended from the theater ceiling. The image is acceptable and the sound is excellent; there is no perceptible delay between the audience vote and the scene it has chosen.

It was clear after two viewings that most of the movie remains essentially the same every time, and that the "choices" provide brief detours that loop back to the main storyline. Choose a different villain, and he or she still gets gassed in the back seat of the limousine. It's said that two hours of material are shot for every 20-minute movie. Nothing on Earth could induce me to sit through every permutation of "Mr. Payback." Is there a future for "interfilms?" Maybe. Someday they may grow clever or witty. Not all of them will be as moronic and offensive as "Mr. Payback." What they do technically, they do pretty well. It is just that this is not a movie. It is mass psychology run wild, with the mob zealously pummeling their buttons, careening downhill toward the sleaziest common denominator.

There were lots of small children in the audience. I thought about asking one little girl if she had voted for the paddle, the rod or the cattle prod. Because she must have voted for one of them. I saw her pushing her buttons.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,505
I would like to have a lot of text in RPG. Like pages of text. However when RPGs become voice acted, people forgot to read.
 

Trip

Learned
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
127
The real thing that a lot of people are doing that's wrong is equating c&c with endings. So many arguments relating to the replay aspect, and how linear games are at least fun the first time, blah, load of shit. C&c is as much in the moment as story, and interacting with the game world at a narrative level as well as a system's level is way more fun than the best video game story.

The ending isn't even what I usually remember. I don't know where this fixation comes from. I completely agree it's in the actual interaction that the most memorable "narrative" moments emerge. It's like that even in non-interactive art; you don't remember the arc, you remember the moments that surprised you, went against your expectations.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
49
Location
Potatoland
Divinity: Original Sin 2
No, I don't think they are, I think for everyone it's pretty clear that the question is about the narrative, and has nothing to do with gameplay.(Thus bringing it into the argument is pointless.)
The game itself obviously doesn't play like a movie, but the narrative does, just a shitty disjointed movie with awful pacing and at it's best "good for video game" writing.

The real thing that a lot of people are doing that's wrong is equating c&c with endings. So many arguments relating to the replay aspect, and how linear games are at least fun the first time, blah, load of shit. C&c is as much in the moment as story, and interacting with the game world at a narrative level as well as a system's level is way more fun than the best video game story.

The problem is, the narrative should be coherent with gameplay. If gameplay affects the narrative (Dishonored, not RPG but... - afaik killing people affects the story - sadly, as you pointed out, only the ending) and narrative (choices) affects the gameplay (i cannot think of example, but i'm pretty sure someone has done it in neat way), and even if gameplay affects gameplay itself (same non-RPG: killing people = more rats to kill) - we have a game, not cinematic experience. Endings don't matter, it's the journey that counts. But apparently it's too complicated. Or maybe the focus is simply in the wrong place (graphics)?
 

Jools

Eater of Apples
Patron
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
10,652
Location
Mêlée Island
Codex 2014 Make the Codex Great Again! Insert Title Here Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
There's another issue that makes me prefer a well-written linear RPG over a "C&C heavy one, written poorly", and that is the fact that no amount of C&C will really satisfy me. Every single attempt at making a C&C-heavy RPG has disappointed me, because at every "choice point", there ALWAYS were at least a few more obvious (to me) choices that had been left out. This always annoyed me greatly, so I'd rather be railroaded (plot-wise) down a single, well-narrated path, than be given faux choices and still feel "forced" to do what the devs want me to do.

I guess it's a silly case of "real, total C&C or nothing". Well, and what I said before: unless they're sandbox/openworld, I can't stand games with poor writing, because the poor writing takes cred away from every other game element.
 

Goblino

Savant
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
327
I can almost agree with you there. Most of the time I'm playing a game, I'm testing the boundaries of what it lets me do, and what I can get away with doing. A little ramble here, but I'm drunk so bear with me. I play games more to see how I can impose my imagination on them rather than win the challenges presented. I once drove my friends crazy playing the demo to Mirrors edge, because I spent an hour in the same spot until I could disarm a swat and kill the swat team instead of running. Almost every game I play loses my interest quickly because they disappoint my desire to really play around in the game. The few games that I can find the patience to beat usually get me through dankass writing, and/or atmosphere.The question in this thread doesn't really account for overall quality, or how it's defined so I assume the "good" writing is just some sub-par creative writing 101 ass-clownerey. I mean, in this era of technology both the cnc and the writing will be shit irregardless, so I'd rather have a slim chance of disarming a swat team than be forced to run.
 

Trip

Learned
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
127
I guess it's a silly case of "real, total C&C or nothing". Well, and what I said before: unless they're sandbox/openworld, I can't stand games with poor writing, because the poor writing takes cred away from every other game element.

Well, there are two issues at hand with open-world-ish writing: 1) Producing text that can apply to more flexible systemic outcomes, and 2) Producing text that is nice to read. They're not mutually exclusive.

because at every "choice point", there ALWAYS were at least a few more obvious (to me) choices that had been left out.

Again, two things about choices: 1) It's the doubt and temptation between the given alternatives that entice me in choice, not their number. Which of course means the alternatives should be good, and there should not be any non-choices anywhere in a game. 2) The consequences should be interesting. It's never not going to be a dev-predefined path, but the key here is surprise, just as the key with choices should be temptation and doubt. And to weave the two together, it's best that the temptation and doubt be connected directly to the fact that the consequences could be both "positive" and "negative", both expected and unexpected. A consequence that ties all of these together is a good consequence.

So you make a friend out of an NPC? Well, they start taking your friendship a little too seriously, following you around, emulating you. So you trade exclusively with one store? Well, they pull you aside and show you a rare item that happened to fall in their lap. Etc. The important thing is to sucker-punch the player (pleasantly) with the non-obvious-but-also-not-improbable consequence of a choice. A bit of misdirection works wonders for non-interactive plots, so why not here, too? It's even more effective when you think your choice (or series of choices) is about one thing, and in a way it is, but it dredges up a whole other bucket of flailing tentacles along with it.
 
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
24
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.

It's the first option. Basically the question is, do you want a book or a game?

Why? Because games are suppose to be interactive above all else. Linear stories are in movies.

I want to play a game, not watch a fucking movie.

Elim, epeli, Innsmouth, Onholyservicebound, I think you all don't understand exactly what a game is, or what it's "strengths as a medium" are. So, I hope you take the debate-bait and read this, along with anyone else who thinks that if there's no interactivity with the game world narratively, then it EDIT: might as well be a movie/book (I originally wrote there is no story, well wtf I guess I was drunk ah well).

The main different between a video game and a movie first of all is that you have a controller (mouse and keyboard are controllers for the purposes of this discussion, they control). Think about it, seriously. How does a movie place you in the plot? Music, visuals, camera work, acting, and writing. Those are the only tools they have. What about video games, what do they have? Music (possibly), visuals (even text adventures come in a certain font, but since there were text adventures before they could chose a font I believe let's say not necessarily), camera work (possibly), writing (possibly), and gameplay. As long as there is some gameplay, and it's a game. I'm sure you don't necessarily disagree with the idea that it is technically a game if it has some amount of gameplay, but you still think maximizing the strengths of the medium means have narrative interact with gameplay, and you're wrong, at least in how your considering the "interaction".

Best example: Resident Evil. Now, take your pick among 1, 2, or 3 for Resident Evil, but it does Survival Horror amazingly well from the standpoint of the gameplay, and it makes the game scarier. Think about it, how the gameplay affects the plot isn't really interesting, but how the gameplay affects the tone, it's a freaking masterpiece. What conflicts does your character face? External conflict with monsters and environment. And for the character, their death is a serious issue. They are scared of death. Now, what is Resident Evil trying to make the player feel? The same thing as the character, fear of death. How do they do this? Limited health restoratives, limited ammo, and limited saving. Now, I'm talking about what the game was attempting to do with this gameplay, not what you felt it did. Sometimes you might think that the acting, music, or whatever of a movie is not the best choice, but that does not change the fact that if the music or acting is trying to create a tone than it using the "strengths of it's medium", it's just your personal experience with it in which it doesn't succeed. The reason I mention this is because you might be inclined to say: "Dying searching for ink ribbons isn't scary, it's fucking tedious", but simple fact is it was intended to be scary and even if the execution is off the gameplay was obviously trying to create a tone. Furthermore, I say fuck you I thought it was scary : D. Seriously, I was fucking terrified to die. I didn't care as much about my in game life as the character would IRL probably, but hell I felt something, I mean you hopefully don't feel just as bad when a mom's kid dies in a movie as you would if your kid actually fucking died! I cared about my life (my in game life), and I seriously played in order to conserve it. So Resident Evil played to the strengths of it's medium. I think there was limited plot interactivity, like a few lines difference depending, but take that out and it still is just as scary, even with usually shit writing compared to even an average horror novel, because the GAMEPLAY set the tone, not the narrative, and it did it WITHOUT INTERACTING DIRECTLY WITH THE NARRATIVE. It played to the mediums strengths, and it makes Resident Evil achieve a fear that is totally different than any horror movie could, I invested in the character's safety in a manner totally different than how I would in a movie. And that is a fucking game. So, CnC is absoluely not necessary to make a game, hell most games have very little, and it's definitely not the the thing that makes it a good game that utilizes the strengths of the medium, it's how the GAMEPLAY sets a tone!

Seriously, actually think about it? What if I create an RPG with incredible CnC where most decisions have an impact on the characters. For example, let's try to get a game where the threat of death of the in-game characters is supposed to be feared. What would happen if I made a combat system where the PC was VASTLY overpowered and could take care of every threat like a fucking boss, and they might as as well have come in riding on tanks with Jesus shooting RPGS. Would that be a game that is playing to the strengths of the medium? No. What if I make a game where every fight could end you if you don't think tactically enough, and dying would result in a serious setback for you like going back more fights, loss of experience, or loss of items? You would invest more in the characters survival here, even if you didn't totally invest in the characters personalities. Now, obviously good CnC could make you invest more in the characters as well if the gameplay assisted. But without well designed gameplay to back it up, your best CnC is shit, and well designed gameplay will try and mostly succeed in setting the tone.

The game itself obviously doesn't play like a movie, but the narrative does, just a shitty disjointed movie with awful pacing and at it's best "good for video game" writing.

That being said, obviously this shows you were arguing something slightly different Onholyservicebound, but still it is wrong in my opinion. Could you really not imagine a well written game that does pacing well and has not just "good for a video game" writing but "good in general" writing. If that's the case, go play Yu-No: it's a dialogue heavy adventure game which, aside from the occasional silliness of particular lines (and perhaps in whatever sex scene that might pop up once in a playthrough" it has some stellar writing in it, the plot and the characters themselves are very well developed. Grant it, it has some of the best CnC but still even if you were forced down a particular path alone it would be amazing (grant it what constitutes a path exactly might effect it a bit as it involves taking a few to get to the 'true' ending, but since it's a time travel ending it's not such a bullshit attempts to give it replay value and each sub-path to one of the not true endings are also still greatly written and very well paced even, but without the sense of understanding that comes from true completion).



Now, lastly, can I point out the whole CnC terminology missed the mark of most discussions we have about CRPGs? Some people what to talk about narrative choices that have narrative effects, like choosing to say this or that or approach a mission this or that way changes the narrative. Some people want to talk about gameplay choices that have narrative consequences when they say CnC, like choosing to be mage means these people hate you or doing these things gives bad karma/reputation/whatever, although reactivity is sometimes used more accurately to talk about this. Some are talking about different endings, some are talking about the ability to choose at least nearly anything in an rpg as the story, seriously we can't have a good discussion if we're not even talking about the same thing.

Also, shit on the visual novel all you want, but people who play them know how to have a good discussion on CnC. Personally, I like the distinctions made and dislike the terminology however, and like to simply use the branching metaphor as the basis when I talk about CnC: does it have wide or narrow branching (how different can one narrative be from another), does it have dense branching (how many narrative choices can you make), how many distinct branches (branches not connected), and then early or late branching, different starts, different endings, unlockable branches/starts/endings/whatevers, and then all the standard rpg lingo like reactivity, classes, character builds, open world, nonlinear (meaning order does matter, you can have a nonlinear story that doesn't branch), and so on.

Describing a game as being reactive linear narrative with narrow, dense branching and multiple endings is much more informative than saying "It has good CnC".



Also to answer the actual question asked, since I might as well, both can be equally fun, but a well written nonbranching game ("no C'n'C") can be truly legendary. Then again I haven't played Arcanum and it seems to be legendary for CnC but no one agrees on the greatness of the plot so maybe that'll change when I get around to it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,748
Location
New Zealand - Pronouns: HE/HIM
downloader.php
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
49
Location
Potatoland
Divinity: Original Sin 2
Now, lastly, can I point out the whole CnC terminology missed the mark of most discussions we have about CRPGs? Some people what to talk about narrative choices that have narrative effects, like choosing to say this or that or approach a mission this or that way changes the narrative. Some people want to talk about gameplay choices that have narrative consequences when they say CnC, like choosing to be mage means these people hate you or doing these things gives bad karma/reputation/whatever, although reactivity is sometimes used more accurately to talk about this. Some are talking about different endings, some are talking about the ability to choose at least nearly anything in an rpg as the story, seriously we can't have a good discussion if we're not even talking about the same thing.

Please don't patronize by saying someone doesn't grasp some concept. It's quite annoying and generally results in hostility. Assume there are different opinions on the subject, there's no need for personal attacks.
I'm not discussing subjective opinion about RE. Or on any other action-adventure for that matter. I'm not shitting on people who play games, I'm talking about my preferences and my understanding on the difference between static and interactive media. If I was content with static, I'd play FPSs (action-adventure games) or watch movies/read books. Sadly, I'm here, seeking the ultimate C&C experience outside pnp.

As to the quote...
But we all are talking about the same thing. C&C is a very huge bag. Generally it comes down to user-game interactivity (even the combat can pass signals to observer), as opposed to static story. I understand "heavy C&C" as, using your lingo, non-linear narrative with broad, dense branching which is equally affected by narrative and sources outside of the narrative (gameplay). Trouble is, such adaptive narrative (and gameplay!) would require serious redesign of game concept - such thinking is not possible when majority equates games with static media, not with software development and AI.
Trip came up with a neat idea on how gameplay can affect the gameplay, outside of the narrative. You can put that in C&C bag as well.
 
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
24
Please don't patronize by saying someone doesn't grasp some concept. It's quite annoying and generally results in hostility. Assume there are different opinions on the subject, there's no need for personal attacks.

Saying "I think you don't understand this" is not a personal attack, I mean I phrased my post in a way that to my perception matches the tone of the codex, so f-bombs were dropped, but I'm not trying to attack you. I didn't say you're dumb, I didn't call you a "faggot" or something, I just said I don't think you get something. Tell me if you think I don't get something, and tell me how, and I'll respond. If I did anything different from that, something that is actually a personal attack, let me know and I'll actually make it a point to avoid it, I like to argue/debate quite a bit but I'm not the type to get into a shitting contest and so I'll trim that if it's present. If you think saying I think you don't understand something is a personal attack, please explain why. I don't understand plenty of shit, and could easily be schooled on something I assume I understand. I don't think doing so is an attack, unless there's inflammatory stuff. I mean I sort of had fun with it, but did I like really just insult you at some point in there?


I'm not discussing subjective opinion about RE. Or on any other action-adventure for that matter. I'm not shitting on people who play games, I'm talking about my preferences and my understanding on the difference between static and interactive media. If I was content with static, I'd play FPSs (action-adventure games) or watch movies/read books. Sadly, I'm here, seeking the ultimate C&C experience outside pnp.

Fair enough. Here, in the spirit of talking about different opinions, I'll give a less fun-having and more dry/sincere perspective on your point of view. PnP RPGs are the root of CRPGs, and PnP RPGs are based on CnC. So should a RPG video game have an emphasis on CnC? Arguably. This article is on the idea that an RPG is not just a turn-based combat simulator, it's about PnP RPGs, but brings up the points your making: http://johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/. Anyways, my point is this anyway: preferences are preferences, all fine and good. But the implication of the comments quoted, yours included, seemed to me to be "the game that is most utilizing the medium's strengths must have CnC", but I think that is not necessarily true. The point that I'm trying to make is that if you're claiming the strength of the game medium, i.e. what it can do that other mediums can't, is have some amount of branching in it's story, is wrong. RE aside, take the example I gave on an RPG, what uses it's medium to create emotion better: having a team that's practically unkillable but technically bad choices in combat can permanently kill teammates, or having combat where the gameplay makes you fear death? Both combine to form the true best game probably, but still, wouldn't you say the gameplay is the core.

As to the quote...
But we all are talking about the same thing. C&C is a very huge bag. Generally it comes down to user-game interactivity (even the combat can pass signals to observer), as opposed to static story. I understand "heavy C&C" as, using your lingo, non-linear narrative with broad, dense branching which is equally affected by narrative and sources outside of the narrative (gameplay). Trouble is, such adaptive narrative (and gameplay!) would require serious redesign of game concept - such thinking is not possible when majority equates games with static media, not with software development and AI.
Trip came up with a neat idea on how gameplay can affect the gameplay, outside of the narrative. You can put that in C&C bag as well.

Gameplay can affect gameplay, but sometime it's fuzzy and can create problems to define gameplay being altered as CnC. I mean, does choosing a new character in Street Figher constitute CnC? Punching vs Kicking? Where do define the ends? How much different do the playstyles need to be to be CnC with gameplay affecting gameplay? It's almost to fuzzy to be helpful IMO. Perhaps you could give me an idea for where to put the edges and maybe it'll make sense. And if we say that CnC is Nonlinear, Dense, Broad narrative with Reactivity (which is roughly gameplay to narrative CnC), then this compression is very lossy, so why not be more granular and specific in our discussion? You don't have to, but it's like asking "Do you like happy movies?". Like what? Kids movies, comedies, fun action adventure, gory but silly...? It's not without meaning, but it's pretty vague.

Also, another note is that you can have Narrative affect gameplay. Maybe if you choose to join a certain cult, if you don't sacrifice one person each day you'll end up having lower strength or something. Anyways, I think it's better to have narrative affecting gameplay and gameplay affect gameplay go into reactivity, and narrative affecting narrative and gameplay affecting narrative (EDIT: it was gameplay affecting gameplay originally I goofed) be CnC, I mean it just sort of works better because gameplay 'branching' is too continuous or granular to get a good grasp in rpgs where you can learn skills and such, so we can't quantify it as well. Maybe you feel differently though?



Also, I'm being honest, if I'm being a dick let me know. I'm trying to sort of jive with the sometimes mocking and seemingly harsh tone of the codex but in my own more easy going sort of way, so if I end up being a jerk in the process let me know, I'm open to learning from it.
 

Trip

Learned
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
127
Seriously, actually think about it? What if I create an RPG with incredible CnC where most decisions have an impact on the characters. For example, let's try to get a game where the threat of death of the in-game characters is supposed to be feared. What would happen if I made a combat system where the PC was VASTLY overpowered and could take care of every threat like a fucking boss, and they might as as well have come in riding on tanks with Jesus shooting RPGS. Would that be a game that is playing to the strengths of the medium? No.

Are "decisions" not part of the gameplay? Couldn't being overpowered be a part of the game's challenge itself? In a type of gameplay where you have to be careful to control your power, instead of unleashing it? See, I think what you're doing with this example is you're just taking an existing gameplay scheme and gluing stuff on it willy-nilly to make a point. Of course it wouldn't fit and of course you're right, in this scenario. Which is completely made-up and practically impossible, except through some designer's egregious error (overpowering your character unwittingly). Instead, imagine all the elements you're used to, but in a different configuration, some of them maybe even inverted or missing.

Also, you're not talking about the medium's strengths at all, you're talking about this particular genre's most prominent current features. (Combat.)
 
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
24
Are "decisions" not part of the gameplay? Couldn't being overpowered be a part of the game's challenge itself? In a type of gameplay where you have to be careful to control your power, instead of unleashing it? See, I think what you're doing with this example is you're just taking an existing gameplay scheme and gluing stuff on it willy-nilly to make a point. Of course it wouldn't fit and of course you're right, in this scenario. Which is completely made-up and practically impossible, except through some designer's egregious error (overpowering your character unwittingly). Instead, imagine all the elements you're used to, but in a different configuration, some of them maybe even inverted or missing.

Also, you're not talking about the medium's strengths at all, you're talking about this particular genre's most prominent current features. (Combat.)

No, I'm talking about gameplay affecting tone. Having death be a real possibility with non-narrative consequences (going back a ways, losing items or experience, whatever) is gameplay affecting tone just like being able to search for clues yourself in a mystery adventure game is gameplay affecting tone. It was a specific instance of a general idea. And you're missing the point. Leave in CnC, take out gameplay that fits the tone. The gameplay in the first scenario wasn't even bad maybe, it was the funnest you've had in ages, it was just never a worry that you were going to die. On the other hand, take all the CnC, but leave tonally fitting gameplay that is also fun, just no CnC. Death has a meaning that is not in the narrative, but for the gamer. Which is more broken? Which is less enjoyable? Tonally fitting gameplay is the heart is my point. You took the best example of CnC where it fittings gameplay, I was comparing a game with no CnC to a game with gameplay that doesn't tonally fit, making the gameplay fit breaks the whole damn analogy and the point, which was take one away, take the other away, one can still leave a game that excels at it's mediums strengths and one takes away the best investment the medium can give, or EDIT let's say the most unique investment the medium can give, non-narrative ones, the type of investment only games can give.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
49
Location
Potatoland
Divinity: Original Sin 2
This article is on the idea that an RPG is not just a turn-based combat simulator, it's about PnP RPGs, but brings up the points your making: http://johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/
I'm not arguing whether RPGs are a turn-based combat simulators or not, wheter linear games are allowed to be the source of fun or not. My point is like... few clicks in the opposite direction, in parallel universe probably. But I get that a lot, so don't worry.

Gameplay can affect gameplay, but sometime it's fuzzy and can create problems to define gameplay being altered as CnC. I mean, does choosing a new character in Street Figher constitute CnC? Punching vs Kicking? Where do define the ends? How much different do the playstyles need to be to be CnC with gameplay affecting gameplay? It's almost to fuzzy to be helpful IMO
No, as much as choosing route r1 from point A to B over route r2 isn't role-playing, nor C&C - because normally the only difference between events on those paths is time; there's no effect on surroundings, route r1 won't affect route's r2 events. Binary choices on route r1 (do some quest to get reward which affects gameplay) are a sucker-punch form of C&C, and Skyrim lovers are content with them - they are not "Heavy C&C" tho. If route's events somehow affected other objects in non-binary way, that would be nice example of C&C. Fuzzy and probable is better than true/false. I consider continous, wide and adaptive branching superior to dense one.
There are no edges, just relative concept.

Aside from that... proper role-playing, the words PC is allowed to speak, is a vital component. If those are in sync with C&C-full narrative & gameplay - which means the dialogue reflects PC actions or at least is in synced with pre-determined PC's role/personality, then the game is masterpiece imho.
Story/setting be damned.
 

Trip

Learned
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
127
I was comparing a game with no CnC to a game with gameplay that doesn't tonally fit, making the gameplay fit breaks the whole damn analogy and the point, which was take one away, take the other away, one can still leave a game that excels at it's mediums strengths and one takes away the best investment the medium can give.

So you're comparing a badly designed CnC game with a decently designed linear game? Is that a fair or even relevant comparison, what do you think? Yes, if you take away decently designed (i.e. affecting tone) gameplay, a game will fail, be it linear or non-linear. (And the "fear" of PC death is definitely not a big deal for most players. It really isn't. I'm not sure why you insist on it so much.) Somehow this doesn't strike me as a blinding insight.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom