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

[Chester Copperpot]

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.

Fair enough, you and me seem like we're both out of pampers so dealing with shades of gray isn't an issue. What shade of gray are you though? I mean where, if at all, do linearity or the non-CnC-ness of a game start to effect your perception of it's rpg status for you?

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.

Fair enough, but the idea of "continuous branching", from a narrative standpoint, I don't understand what that would be. If you're talking about like granular changes to a game world outside of narrative interactions, I agree I'd like to know that information about a game. However using the branching metaphor for continuous sorts of events is just kind of, paradoxical. A branch is discrete, that's how they look. That's why the structure of games based primarily on dialogue choices are described with it, or the narrative of games with extensive narrative have the story described as branching. Have you seem a fuzzy branch ever? That's my point, narratives can be described as branches cause you can count the branches, and map their topology. That's how dialogue works, there are distinct sentences and outcomes. Gameplay changes? Not so much.

I'll have a better chance of knowing that however if you use a different term than CnC for gameworld reacting to you in some fuzzy sort of way. I mean you don't have to, it's just something to consider. If a game has a reactive game world but a static narrative, why use the same adjective that could describe an unreactive game world (mechanically speaking unreactive) with a highly branching narrative, just like why put a bunch of concepts together under the same banner? I mean even if you do, can you at least give a different name to the narrative interactions I'm talking about so I know when it's narrative vs game world stuff? However, CnC seems to be generally used to describe narrative choices with narrative consequences (not exclusively narrative but at least narrative mind you) and reactivity to describe the world changing mechanically, structurally, or whatever in some way to you (karma systems and such are in some middle ground so put that wherever).

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.

I agree, it is a masterpiece. My point is more if you have a game with no dialogue or narrative choices but a highly reactive game world, and a game with an immense amount of dialogue choices (hopefully well written) but the game world itself is unreactive to nonnarrative decisions, why say both have good CnC or insert adjectives? Why not have two distinct unrelated words for it?

 

[JarlFrank]

The more interactive one because strict linearity is fucking bullshit.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

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.

Fear of PC death can be a big deal in games where you can't save willy nilly. That's why survival horror is a great genre, it's defined by the interaction of the tone (horror) and the mechanics (survival). The game talks to itself, and sets a consistent tone. RPGs can elic any emotion, not just fear, with a similar marriage of gameplay and tone. Anyways, my point wasn't about well written versus CnC, didn't mention writing at all in my reply. I was replying to the mentality that a game that is linear is not using the medium to it's best advantage, and my reply was that having the gameplay set the tone is more important that having extensive CnC. There was an equations with "linear game"="book" going on which is silly. You were quoted because you seemed to be guilty of this, but tell me if I'm wrong. I was more responding to an attitude in this thread than the original post.

 

[naossano]

I would say good writting first.
To aknowledge the C & C you have to be interested enough in the game to actually look forward those.

If the writting sucks from the beginning, you aren't likely to play it enough to check if it also has C & C.

At the other hand, if the writting is average, but is heavy on C & C, it can be great.

 

[epeli]

Chester Copperpot for me the choice was obvious from the way OP put it:

a very linear RPG with a plot of great quality but with almost no real plot C&C and very strong narrative railroading
or
an RPG with a mediocre to slightly bad writing and general plot structure but with insane interactivity and well developed C&C, with every choice having great impact on the story

I suppose the idea was to pit linear shit against poorly written piss, but that description gives a different impression.

Mediocre writing is completely acceptable, especially if other aspects of the game are excellent as described. I mean seriously, most RPGs (excluding very few like Ps:T) have average writing. And many of them don't even have insane interactivity, well developed C&C nor plenty of meaningful choices to go with that.

But any game that's very linear and suffers from strong narrative railroading is at best worth playing through once. It might be a good story, but it won't be a good game.

 

[Trip]

You were quoted because you seemed to be guilty of this, but tell me if I'm wrong.

"Guilty of this"? Heh. No, I wasn't "guilty" of it. The medium's distinction is interactivity, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with linearity/non-linearity.

Anyways, my point wasn't about well written versus CnC, didn't mention writing at all in my reply.

O...kay? Neither did I. And if you're addressing something other than my recent posts, please make it clearer.

I still think you're quite off the mark with this "fear of PC death = horror atmosphere". And especially so by suggesting a designer should mess with the save system. It's an issue that's been discussed quite a lot here, I think, and artificial restrictions like this one don't lead to player "fear", only to player frustration. They might lead to player tension at first, but only because players don't want to be forced into starting over from a distant check-point. This isn't what horror is about. There's nothing more destructive to the fragile atmosphere of this genre than retracing a level over and over, like in some dumb platformer where you fail a jump again and again.

epeli , it could well be a good game, if it provides you with strong challenge and alternative ways to overcome it. Neither of these comes under "CnC" or "reactivity" and yes, it probably won't be replayable, but it most definitely will be a good game.

 

[epeli]

epeli , it could well be a good game, if it provides you with strong challenge and alternative ways to overcome it. Neither of these comes under "CnC" or "reactivity" and yes, it probably won't be replayable, but it most definitely will be a good game.

Sure, but gameplay was not a part of the premise. If we assume both games have equally good gameplay, my point still stands. Not to mention providing alternatives goes against this whole "very linear" thing, but let's not argue the semantics of that.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Chester Copperpot for me the choice was obvious from the way OP put it:


I suppose the idea was to pit linear shit against poorly written piss, but that description gives a different impression.

Mediocre writing is completely acceptable, especially if other aspects of the game are excellent as described. I mean seriously, most RPGs (excluding very few like Ps:T) have average writing. And many of them don't even have insane interactivity, well developed C&C nor plenty of meaningful choices to go with that.

But any game that's very linear and suffers from strong narrative railroading is at best worth playing through once. It might be a good story, but it won't be a good game.

Well, here's counterargument to that, in a best case scenario: a game has like the best writing, like a movie you could revisit, and on top of that, the gameplay is extremely varied. What if, for example, small variations in strategy resulted in large changes in combat, but there were still many viable combat strategies that were complete different, like an extremely responsive complex tactical game of some sort that may not even exist, but maybe it does (roguelikes can come close I think, some rpgs do too occasionally). Different strategies and a large portion of the game spend playing=replay value, and well written story would certainly not hurt.

"Guilty of this"? Heh. No, I wasn't "guilty" of it. The medium's distinction is interactivity, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with linearity/non-linearity

I'm confused why you'd think a linear story would be the same in a movie as in a game then, the quote in my original post was along the lines of "no thanks, I'll read a book" with regards to a linear story with no CnC.

O...kay? Neither did I. And if you're addressing something other than my recent posts, please make it clearer.

I'm not. I addressed what you just said. Consider a game with tonal gameplay but no CnC, consider a game with CnC but gameplay doesn't match tone. The first utilizes the strengths of the medium more, and frankly is better. Therefore tonal gameplay is more important that CnC. Quod erat demonstradum, unless there is a flaw in my reasoning?

So you're comparing a badly designed CnC game with a decently designed linear game?

Anyways, my point wasn't about well written versus CnC, didn't mention writing at all in my reply.

You didn't mention writing, but I'm comparing a game with nontonal gameplay and great CnC (great as in, a lot of choices have interesting consequences, like a game where poor combat choices lead to character death. How poor you combat choices have to be don't alter the fact that it's CnC). EDIT: I forgot to add: If you fix the design, I comparing a game with tonal gameplay with no CnC to a game with tonal gameplay and Cnc? I'm not comparing CnC and no Cnc, I'm comparing tonal gameplay and CnC. Should've been apparent.

I still think you're quite off the mark with this "fear of PC death = horror atmosphere". And especially so by suggesting a designer should mess with the save system. It's an issue that's been discussed quite a lot here, I think, and artificial restrictions like this one don't lead to player "fear", only to player frustration. They might lead to player tension at first, but only because players don't want to be forced into starting over from a distant check-point. This isn't what horror is about. There's nothing more destructive to the fragile atmosphere of this genre than retracing a level over and over, like in some dumb platformer where you fail a jump again and again.

I actually felt fear in Resident Evil from the gameplay regardless of your impression. Anyways, this is a totally unrelated point. Apply any tonal gameplay concept, like I said, what about an Mystery based game where you're finding the clues and deducing for yourself? That is the interaction of tone and gameplay, which creates investment and involvement in the game that is totally different from a movie. That's my point here. Also, sometimes it is a dumb mechanic, and can be just frustrating, but implementation can make it fairly good. It can encourage stealth but allow for some confrontations, making you think tactically. It's only really tedious if you die, which if you're smart you shouldn't. A different tone than if you could save anywhere and you chanced it on any enemy because you could. Like I said though, the particular gameplay concept doesn't matter just my two cents on the issue of fear of PC death anyway, and it's very far off from the point of this thread as a tangent of a tangent, at least a tangent is still touching the main point.

 

[Trip]

I'm confused why you'd think a linear story would be the same in a movie as in a game then, the quote in my original post was along the lines of "no thanks, I'll read a book" with regards to a linear story with no CnC.

It was along those lines indeed. It also wasn't mine.

I'm not. I addressed what you just said. Consider a game with tonal gameplay but no CnC, consider a game with CnC but gameplay doesn't match tone. The first utilizes the strengths of the medium more, and frankly is better. Therefore tonal gameplay is more important that CnC. Quod erat demonstradum, unless there is a flaw in my reasoning?

Again, you're asking me to consider a well-designed game in comparison to a poorly-designed game. "Tonal" gameplay means good design. Gameplay not matching tone means poor design. When you have these two in comparison, it doesn't matter what the other elements are. The comparison is rigged.

You didn't mention writing, but...

No buts. If I haven't mentioned it, don't bring it up as if I have.

It's only really tedious if you die, which if you're smart you shouldn't.

"Should" doesn't matter. What matters is "does". Players do die a lot in survival games, players do get frustrated. If you design a game with a view of what a players "should" do, you'll fail, simple as that. You design a game with a view of what players "do" do, and then finding workarounds or teaching them from the outset to take different things into consideration than what they're used to.

 

[Innsmouth Dweller]

where, if at all, do linearity or the non-CnC-ness of a game start to effect your perception of it's rpg status for you?

The usual suspects - quests. If my PC can solve a task in one way only or don't solve it at all, I know, I'm not playing RPG. Another thing is result of various actions - which I usually take because I refuse to role-play hero-type of a character. Number of dialogue options doesn't matter if they are not differentiated enough, to allow wider spectrum of personalities and predispositions I can equip my char with (stats/skills) than 'push convo forward/inquire on subject X'.

Fair enough, but the idea of "continuous branching", from a narrative standpoint, I don't understand what that would be

I'll have a better chance of knowing that however if you use a different term than CnC for gameworld reacting to you in some fuzzy sort of way.

Probably because it cannot be done by narrative alone (for now). Narrative is predetermined on creation (writers). Continous changes provided by gameplay affecting various game objects is a bit of a mouthful. I have no term for that and narrative branching together. Maybe bljrfdh? C&C in narrative sense alone is something that's resolved in build-your-adventure books. It's another static media, with various, yet still predetermined, paths. "Karma" or "Disposition" systems are indeed middle ground, plus they provide the interface for user so it's obvious why cannot I choose some particular dialogue option or why this NPC reacts to me this way (attacks on sight). Choice is not only about dialogue, but your play style as well. If you choose to sneak your way in, you shouldn't be forced into fighting some armoured swordmaster without an alternative option. Have you ever played E.Y.E: Divine Cybermancy? It's the first shooter I find extremaly innovative and reactive to a point some cRPGs can learn a great deal from it, despite its shortcomings.

I agree, it is a masterpiece. My point is more if you have a game with no dialogue or narrative choices but a highly reactive game world, and a game with an immense amount of dialogue choices (hopefully well written) but the game world itself is unreactive to nonnarrative decisions, why say both have good CnC or insert adjectives? Why not have two distinct unrelated words for it?

I don't consider immense amount of dialogue choices combined with unreactive game-world a "Heavy C&C" game. Such dialogue is static, you can pick any option, but the game doesn't care which option you took and will not bash you with it later. It works for the tone, but there is absolutely no consequence about it. If you're presented with various options that lead to the same outcome - that's static story, not a well-designed game that fully utilizes the power of interactivity given by this media.
But I guess that depends on perception.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

It was along those lines indeed. It also wasn't mine.

Forgive me if I'm being dense, which is quote possible I'm a little tired as of now, but what exactly wasn't yours?

Again, you're asking me to consider a well-designed game in comparison to a poorly-designed game. "Tonal" gameplay means good design. Gameplay not matching tone means poor design. When you have these two in comparison, it doesn't matter what the other elements are. The comparison is rigged.

If you want to call a nontonal gameplay not well designed, I think we're talking past each other then, because a game with gameplay that is not tonal can be well designed, at least in a limited sense. If I design a game mechanic, that doesn't fit the tone I'm trying to set for the world, BUT it is however supremely enjoyable, not even in a broken way, it's extremely well designed, just out of place, is really bad design? The gameplay is well designed, it just doesn't fit narratively. People might enjoy your game, they just won't feel what you're trying to get them to with the narrative.

No buts. If I haven't mentioned it, don't bring it up as if I have.

My point wasn't "you didn't mention it, but you did." my point was I was completely baffled by how what I was saying didn't make sense if you really weren't talking about writing. It honestly confused me, so yes, there is a but there, "but what does what your saying make any sense, or what does it mean, if your point had nothing to do with writing?". I'm closer to answering that after reading the above point made by you (closer to understanding, not necessarily agreeing at this point in time), but I wasn't when I had that but, and so it was justified.

"Should" doesn't matter. What matters is "does". Players do die a lot in survival games, players do get frustrated. If you design a game with a view of what a players "should" do, you'll fail, simple as that. You design a game with a view of what players "do" do, and then finding workarounds or teaching them from the outset to take different things into consideration than what they're used to.

Depends on the player, and nothing wrong with having plenty who do, it's just that your work is aimed at those who won't. You won't catch as many fish with a smaller net, but some would say a smaller net has less holes. So just because some get frustrated and don't connect with a particular component doesn't mean you shouldn't utilize it necessarily. Perhaps my should was hasty though, if you die in a Survival Horror you're not a "filthy casual" or anything really, but there are plenty who don't die much and plenty who do and that's fine: there are plenty who will like the game and plenty who won't, like anything. Regardless, I've died alot in some survival horror games and even then it didn't kill the atmosphere for me, but that's purely personal, just like most of this, having nothing to do with topic at hand, but whatever.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

The usual suspects - quests. If my PC can solve a task in one way only or don't solve it at all, I know, I'm not playing RPG. Another thing is result of various actions - which I usually take because I refuse to role-play hero-type of a character. Number of dialogue options doesn't matter if they are not differentiated enough, to allow wider spectrum of personalities and predispositions I can equip my char with (stats/skills) than 'push convo forward/inquire on subject X'.

Well, having the ability to sneak, kill, or bribe is still a finite choice, and if it affects narrative it could be considering in the branching scenario, because it's not continuous. Anything that affects the narrative is branching, even if it's gameplay. Also, amount of dialogue and distinctness is important. That's why I use wide vs dense. Dense and narrow is you have four choices every point in conversation, but result may never change. Wide and sparse (not dense) is you may only have two choices of narrative impact., but they give widely different outcomes. There's middle ground, with slight differences, and you can have a wide and dense narrative system, which could be like you could have 5 or 6 totally different paths through the game, and if you couldn't switch from one path to the other easily they'd be distinct.

Probably because it cannot be done by narrative alone (for now). Narrative is predetermined on creation (writers). Continous changes provided by gameplay affecting various game objects is a bit of a mouthful. I have no term for that and narrative branching together. Maybe bljrfdh? C&C in narrative sense alone is something that's resolved in build-your-adventure books. It's another static media, with various, yet still predetermined, paths. "Karma" or "Disposition" systems are indeed middle ground, plus they provide the interface for user so it's obvious why cannot I choose some particular dialogue option or why this NPC reacts to me this way (attacks on sight). Choice is not only about dialogue, but your play style as well. If you choose to sneak your way in, you shouldn't be forced into fighting some armoured swordmaster without an alternative option. Have you ever played E.Y.E: Divine Cybermancy? It's the first shooter I find extremaly innovative and reactive to a point some cRPGs can learn a great deal from it, despite its shortcomings.

I haven't tried EYE yet, but I will certainly sometime, it sounds like one of those beautifully fun broken classics I'd need to try if only to taste it's mechanics for a bit. I think there's confusing in how I'm using reactivity, and perhaps I'm using it in the wrong. I mean to say something more along the lines of, I don't know, like gameplay choices that give different mechanics (magic, brute force, speed, ect.), or maybe generic npc responses are given depending on associations or something.

I don't consider immense amount of dialogue choices combined with unreactive game-world a "Heavy C&C" game. Such dialogue is static, you can pick any option, but the game doesn't care which option you took and will not bash you with it later. It works for the tone, but there is absolutely no consequence about it. But I guess that depends on perception.

What if you choose an option, and people live and die, you loose money or items, fight battles, and other stuff depending purely on dialogue choices? This is very reactive in a general sense, but as I was using world reactivity before, it's not 'reactive' in that particular sense. Perhaps I didn't define that properly or I'm misusing the term and it's confusing.

 

[Trip]

Forgive me if I'm being dense, which is quote possible I'm a little tired as of now, but what exactly wasn't yours?

The quote you mentioned, about reading a book, etc.

If you want to call a nontonal gameplay not well designed, I think we're talking past each other then, because a game with gameplay that is not tonal can be well designed, at least in a limited sense. If I design a game mechanic, that doesn't fit the tone I'm trying to set for the world, BUT it is however supremely enjoyable, not even in a broken way, it's extremely well designed, just out of place, is really bad design? The gameplay is well designed, it just doesn't fit narratively. People might enjoy your game, they just won't feel what you're trying to get them to with the narrative.

Yes, it's bad design. It has unintended consequences that don't fit with what you were aiming at. When it's entertaining, it's unintentionally so, and usually doesn't have anything to do with the game's reality. (Not with its "narrative", but with how the game world functions.) And in any case, the chance of a discordant game mechanic to turn out entertaining is vanishingly small. The supremely, non-derpily enjoyable discordant mechanic is well-nigh statistically impossible.

Regardless, I've died alot in some survival horror games and even then it didn't kill the atmosphere for me, but that's purely personal, just like most of this, having nothing to do with topic at hand, but whatever.

Most players, again, statistically, don't get to the "even then" before the game breaks their immersion. Which makes your experience, yes, purely personal. And in the minority. It's human psychology. Most people will stop paying attention to the atmosphere around the 10th time they attempt the same challenge, knowing everything beforehand, thinking only of their timing, dexterity and minmaxing their approach. No place for aesthetics there.

 

[Trip]

What if you choose an option, and people live and die, you loose money or items, fight battles, and other stuff depending purely on dialogue choices? This is very reactive in a general sense, but as I was using world reactivity before, it's not 'reactive' in that particular sense.

What player actions would precipitate this "world reactivity" you talk about? Are strategy and tactics a solely combat prerogative? Are quantifiable results the only sort of valid reactivity?

 

[Chester Copperpot]

The quote you mentioned, about reading a book, etc.

EDIT forgot to say something about this, ahh well.

Yes, it's bad design. It has unintended consequences that don't fit with what you were aiming at. When it's entertaining, it's unintentionally so, and usually doesn't have anything to do with the game's reality. (Not with its "narrative", but with how the game world functions.) And in any case, the chance of a discordant game mechanic to turn out entertaining is vanishingly small. The supremely, non-derpily enjoyable discordant mechanic is well-nigh statistically impossible.

What is how the game world functions? That is defined by the mechanics isn't it? Or do you mean like setting and rules of the world? I mean take a game where the plot is about an intricate tactical war between feuding nations, and every battle involves highly tactical position and such, but instead of having you decide it and be in the shoes of the characters, the computer decides it and press buttons a certain way to execute it successfully, but in accordance with some actually amusing sort of gameplay that fits into the world, like maybe there a big emphasize on the "rhythmic" aspects of war and so in practice you play it like a rhythm game. Maybe it sounds shitty in the explanation a bit, but my point is in general, you can imagine a battle system that fits into a game world and is fun, and even fits into the narrative, but is not 'tonal', the actual 'feeling' of playing the game doesn't match the tone trying to be set. It can be the most well designed rhythm game in the world, have many aspects of the game's world tie in, still doesn't have the right tone.

Most players, again, statistically, don't get to the "even then" before the game breaks their immersion. Which makes your experience, yes, purely personal. And in the minority. It's human psychology. Most people will stop paying attention to the atmosphere around the 10th time they attempt the same challenge, knowing everything beforehand, thinking only of their timing, dexterity and minmaxing their approach. No place for aesthetics there.

Statistically? You know (i+1)/pi random bringing up of statistics is just people saying things on the internet? If you're going to say statistic, show it, or don't. I don't care about your a-priori evident, actually cite if you're dropping the statistics or sciences as a basis, and psychology is a science so cite it or it doesn't matter in the least what you claim. Why are most players dying 9 times? Why is the game that difficult? Seriously, and this isn't a statistic it's just personal experience cause I'd cite it if it were, I honestly think there's a large group of people who don't die ten times on any segment of Resident Evil, based on who I know mostly. Could be I have a biased sample obviously, but I'm stating what I have experience with. Anyways, reflexes? The zombies walk, you can kill and maneuver around them, and the other enemies you save all the shotgun ammo for. But honestly I'd prefer to PM about it than to continue derailing the topic on Survival Horror, I'd rather post here about CnC in RPGs at least.

 

[Jools]

This last page of the thread:

 

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Well, having the ability to sneak, kill, or bribe is still a finite choice, and if it affects narrative it could be considering in the branching scenario, because it's not continuous. Anything that affects the narrative is branching, even if it's gameplay

So... we're talking real models, not perfect ones? Scalling enemies is something that affects the gameplay in discrete way (nothing is really continous in digital world); imagine something working like that but not for counting the experience, but used skill or tested stat and pass that to game controller to change the number/ratio of specific type of mob to be spawned in random encounters, or a NPC with 'source-specific' quest line or change RNG in loot tables, or for the narrative - work as "dispositions" to give player more role-playing, yet static, dialogue options. Narrative is always finite, because you cannot specify infinite set of options a priori, without a funcion. Adaptive game master is always better than prepared solution.

I mean to say something more along the lines of, I don't know, like gameplay choices that give different mechanics (magic, brute force, speed, ect.), or maybe generic npc responses are given depending on associations or something.

That gives to the tone and "immershun", which basically is "affecting the gameplay". As I've said - this and "branchy" narrative is something that's equally important imho.

What if you choose an option, and people live and die, you loose money or items, fight battles, and other stuff depending purely on dialogue choices? This is very reactive in a general sense, but as I was using world reactivity before, it's not 'reactive' in that particular sense. Perhaps I didn't define that properly or I'm misusing the term and it's confusing.

If one dialogue knew what was the last one about and what my PC said - I could live with that. Unless combat sucks. If we're considering pushing a red button (to destroy a city) an action, there should be some smoke afterwards. If I call someone "idiot" I don't expect his friend to be all nice and sweet while talking to me. If I loose my money because of dialogue option, I want to know why and be presented with another option - maybe even a quest line, or two excluding ones (i lost money because a starving child stole it from me - i can help the child and maybe his family, or i can try to straighten the kid up). Not a simple fact of losing money.

 

[Trip]

you can imagine a battle system that fits into a game world and is fun, and even fits into the narrative, but is not 'tonal', the actual 'feeling' of playing the game doesn't match the tone trying to be set.

No, I can't. How can it fit with the world and the narrative and not fit with the tone, which is a direct function of the world and the narrative? Your example doesn't help. How does an "intricate tactical war" plot even look in a rhythm game? How do these mesh? How do concepts in general mesh? This is a much more important issue than just juxtaposing those concepts, be they "CnC", or "linearity", or "tonal gameplay", etc. Putting these next to each other in a sentence means nothing unless you tease out their components and interconnections.

To be honest, the whole premise of this thread is like that. It simply throws together buzzword concepts, like asking "do you prefer a pig with a human head as a pet, or a fire-breathing parrot?" Noone seems to care about the actual details of what these things would look like in practice.

Statistically? You know (i+1)/pi random bringing up of statistics is just people saying things on the internet? If you're going to say statistic, show it, or don't. I don't care about your a-priori evident, actually cite if you're dropping the statistics or sciences as a basis, and psychology is a science so cite it or it doesn't matter in the least what you claim.

I will do no such thing It's quite enough for anyone here to come across this and then try and think of a single challenging gameplay experience that retained its aesthetic atmosphere and immersion after even 5 repeated, frustrated attempts (with no save-points close by), and that didn't turn into a tactical minmaxing challenge or into a boring slog that made them quit the game. I'm quite confident the statistics are on my side, no matter how much you cry "'Tis a fallacy!" at me.

 

[Jools]

To be honest, the whole premise of this thread is like that. It simply throws together buzzword concepts, like asking "do you prefer a pig with a human head as a pet, or a fire-breathing parrot?" Noone seems to care about the actual details of what these things would look like in practice.

That's why the first two words of the thread title are "THEORETICAL QUESTION", I think.

We're not talking game x VS game y, we are talking principles. It could be rephrased, to avoid confusion and all this semantic jerking off, to "should a developer invest more on story or C&C?" or "what's more important to you, story or C&C?".

Again, the question was theoretical. On that note, I think this kind of discourse can only happen on a theoretical level because, whereas a game with excellent writing is quite achievable, C&C will -IMHO and for the forseeable future- always be fairly shit/superficial/flavour, whether you consider them branching, reactivity, or something else.

 

[naossano]

Is there any good exemple of the worst possible writting, i mean in the top 10 of the most shittiest writting of all time, while at the same time offering the best amount of C & C in ages.
I don't mean quite bad writting and quite good C & C, but the extremes of both scales in the same game.


I mean, if someone if so lazy that they don't bother to read themselves, why would they care about making some C & C, which require even more time ?

 

[Jools]

Is there any good exemple of the worst possible writting, i mean in the top 10 of the most shittiest writting of all time, while at the same time offering the best amount of C & C in ages.

I can't think of any. I think the opposite is much more likely (really good writing with worst possible C&C).

 

[Trip]

That's why the first two words of the thread title are "THEORETICAL QUESTION", I think.

"Theoretical" doesn't mean "handwaving vague concepts around and expressing an opinion based on the vague feelings that these vague concepts provoke". That's not what theory is about. It's about speculating and building models of how things might/should/could be in practice.

In theory, as I said, decent writing and C&C are not mutually exclusive at all. If a single person can, on average, regularly produce 500K+ words in a year, which branching interactive fiction authors have managed to do routinely in the last few years (with writing that's at least on par with the generic blarghndness of recent CRPGs), then scale, at least in terms of text that covers a wide range of CnC, isn't an issue. Models for constructing reactive game worlds also exist, be they node-based scenario designs, GM-like drama managers, the honeycomb quest structure that Chris Avellone has talked about, some time-pressure-based concepts that InXile are toying with, apparently, etc. It's a matter of controlling the workflow and having the right technical tools for the job so you can produce content unimpeded.

So theoretically, combining the concrete fact that one can write a shitload of decent game text in a year or two and the concrete fact that people have thought out some compelling world-reactivity models, it's possible to have a reactive, well-written game. By the way, nowhere does the OP mention anything about art direction and graphics, which is a whole other kettle of Cthulhu.

As for truly high literary-quality linear game - I don't see it as quite the "quite achievable" thing you imagine it to be. It's not just about a great writing style. It's about level pacing, encounter/puzzle design, presenting the world compellingly from inside a physical environment, have quests tie into the theme, have them presented in a way that doesn't break storytelling coherence... It's about writing an interactive novel in dynamic space and time. Honestly, I almost can't think of a game writer that has really achieved high quality in all of these aspects together (not just giving a promise of being able to do it "right" one day, maybe), or can do it at all.

Some idle musings: doesn't insane CnC automatically imply a well-thought out world that reacts in a complex manner to the player's action? This world would presumably include NPCs with well-thought out reactions covering a wide range of situations, and this would automatically make these NPCs more complex and interesting than any run-of-the-mill RPG pixel-puppets. This world would also presumably include interesting repercussions of your actions, and that would automatically make the plot-structure more complex and interesting than your run-of-the-mill RPG McGuffin errands.

Now, how do complex, reactive NPCs and events fit with "mediocre" or "bad" writing?

What's a badly-written NPC? One whose lines are clumsily written? But the clumsily-written lines exist now exactly because NPCs aren't reactive, don't they? They want you to find Timmy in the well or feed their chickens, and that's it. Hence they sound like idiots. If they had a number of reactions to a number of things in the world, they wouldn't sound, and more importantly, behave, like idiots.
What's badly-written plot then? A bland, cliche main quest, maybe? But what if it blossoms through all the CnC opportunities you have in this hypothetical CnC-rich game?

Also, doesn't good writing presuppose interesting, surprising turns of narrative? And isn't this at least in some way synonymous with interesting CnC? How "good" is this good writing if you realize in the first 30 minutes that you're meant to be led by the nose, standing still and reading the writer's masterpiece when they tell you, jumping through gameplay hoops when they allow you? And how long before you start skimming or outright skipping stuff, no matter how masterful the sentences?

 

[Jools]

That's why the first two words of the thread title are "THEORETICAL QUESTION", I think.

"Theoretical" doesn't mean "handwaving vague concepts around and expressing an opinion based on the vague feelings that these vague concepts provoke". That's not what theory is about. It's about speculating and building models of how things might/should/could be in practice.

In theory, as I said, decent writing and C&C are not mutually exclusive at all. If a single person can, on average, regularly produce 500K+ words in a year, which branching interactive fiction authors have managed to do routinely in the last few years (with writing that's at least on par with the generic blarghndness of recent CRPGs), then scale, at least in terms of text that covers a wide range of CnC, isn't an issue. Models for constructing reactive game worlds also exist, be they node-based scenario designs, GM-like drama managers, the honeycomb quest structure that Chris Avellone has talked about, some time-pressure-based concepts that InXile are toying with, apparently, etc. It's a matter of controlling the workflow and having the right technical tools for the job so you can produce content unimpeded.

So theoretically, combining the concrete fact that one can write a shitload of decent game text in a year or two and the concrete fact that people have thought out some compelling world-reactivity models, it's possible to have a reactive, well-written game. By the way, nowhere does the OP mention anything about art direction and graphics, which is a whole other kettle of Cthulhu.

As for truly high literary-quality linear game - I don't see it as quite the "quite achievable" thing you imagine it to be. It's not just about a great writing style. It's about level pacing, encounter/puzzle design, presenting the world compellingly from inside a physical environment, have quests tie into the theme, have them presented in a way that doesn't break storytelling coherence... It's about writing an interactive novel in dynamic space and time. Honestly, I almost can't think of a game writer that has really achieved high quality in all of these aspects together (not just giving a promise of being able to do it "right" one day, maybe), or can do it at all.

Some idle musings: doesn't insane CnC automatically imply a well-thought out world that reacts in a complex manner to the player's action? This world would presumably include NPCs with well-thought out reactions covering a wide range of situations, and this would automatically make these NPCs more complex and interesting than any run-of-the-mill RPG pixel-puppets. This world would also presumably include interesting repercussions of your actions, and that would automatically make the plot-structure more complex and interesting than your run-of-the-mill RPG McGuffin errands.

Now, how do complex, reactive NPCs and events fit with "mediocre" or "bad" writing?

What's a badly-written NPC? One whose lines are clumsily written? But the clumsily-written lines exist now exactly because NPCs aren't reactive, don't they? They want you to find Timmy in the well or feed their chickens, and that's it. Hence they sound like idiots. If they had a number of reactions to a number of things in the world, they wouldn't sound, and more importantly, behave, like idiots.
What's badly-written plot then? A bland, cliche main quest, maybe? But what if it blossoms through all the CnC opportunities you have in this hypothetical CnC-rich game?

Also, doesn't good writing presuppose interesting, surprising turns of narrative? And isn't this at least in some way synonymous with interesting CnC? How "good" is this good writing if you realize in the first 30 minutes that you're meant to be led by the nose, standing still and reading the writer's masterpiece when they tell you, jumping through gameplay hoops when they allow you? And how long before you start skimming or outright skipping stuff, no matter how masterful the sentences?

 

[Siveon]

Battle of the Newfags: The Thread.

Spoiler

Joined: 2013

 

[Irenaeus II]

We should do the following thread next:
[practical question] what kind of an RPG would you prefer?

Spoiler

My body food is read