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.

Age of Decadence is the best CRPG of the past 15 years

Drowed

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
1,676
Location
Core City
Yes, in Fallout, I would have been able to get the drop on those people. Get them drunk with beer to lower their perception/ranged accuracy, plant timed explosives on their bodies, then mop up from a more advantageous position.
You can also do that in AoD. For example, when dealing with the Aurelians at the mines near Teron, you can poison their supplies. With simple rat poison, you can simply lower their health, but with much stronger poison you can even have some of them killed and the rest much easier to deal with.

I think you're missing the point, Black. Can you do this at every encounter in the game? It's a difference between organic interaction and script interaction. It's a design issue. Some games are made based on the principle that you have certain tools (mechanics), and you can interact using them however you want. Other games are made assuming you only have access to certain tools (mechanics) when the context allows. Most, however, are more or less in the middle.

For example, in Fallout you can activate the Dynamite item in your inventory and set a time. However, by using the Steal skill, you can access inventories of other characters. Combining the two, you can access inventories of various characters and plant Dynamite within them and move away, just waiting for them to explode. There really isn't a clear limit, and you can essentially do this with any character in the game. Because this is an organic interaction, it emerges from the mechanics of the game. An extreme example of such a situation is the stupidity of Skyrim's NPCs, where you can put a bucket in their heads so they won't "see" when you're stealing items that are right there. Obviously, there are good games and terrible games with organic design, and different levels of success in implementing that idea. But overall, organic games allow you to solve a situation in different ways.

But in games like AOD, you are only able to make an interaction uniquely and exclusively when there is a script that determines what check will be made. I can have steal at level 10, but no matter how many times I click on any of the characters around, I cannot use this skill except on the specific NPC where VD decided that I could steal from. I can have sneak at level 10, but when I click on a door, my character will automatically enter into a dialogue with the NPCs inside the house and a fight will start, I cannot activate my sneak before and sneak in to give them a stab in the back - except at the two specific times in the game where he determined that this can be done. Your skills can only be used when and how the creator of the game determined in an already written scenario.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Organic design games are immensely more complex to make and often lead to situations that the creator didn't anticipate. For example, in an Underrail quest on Junkyard, you can force Grover to meet Treasa and then you can kill her to get her Plasma Core. But when I played I found another solution: I activated sneak and stole her Plama Core from behind before starting the dialogue. In the game version where I did this, the conversion didn't reflect this option and I was required to follow a script as if I still didn't have the item. I commented this right here on a Codex topic, and Styg read it and added a new option where you can now dismiss the two NPCs. And that's great, but this is just one example of how organic mechanics can get out of hand and create unexpected situations.

Games like AOD offer several options, yeah, but these options usually follow a pre-determined script. It's no surprise therefore that many players feel trapped on a rail when they play the game. It still can be a good, fun and well written rail, of course.
 

Black Angel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Wonderland
Drowed I agree with you overall, but I didn't miss the point. AoD indeed force players to play by their system of dialogue-esque window/gamebook format. It's just that I disagree with Roguey's notion that the paths available for players in the game is only VD/ITS's paths, when it's exactly just like that in other RPGs. It's just the limitation that ITS put upon players in AoD felt more tight and rigid because of their chosen system. Other RPGs, like Fallout and especially Underrail still limits the players by their system, but because their system is much more 'loose' (for the lack of better terms), as in players can decide when and where to click a button, there's more degree of freedom in it compared to choosing an option in dialogue-esque window.

Once again, I want to make it clear that when comparing AoD and other RPGs (like Underrail), I don't have specific preference because I love both for different reasons. While AoD's system is more tight and rigid (as Elhoim eloquently elaborated, 'lacking meat between the bones'), it gives me a lot of opportunities to try completely different build and experience completely different content in a relatively short span of time. A lot of people might see this as a fact that AoD is just a CYOA, but I don't care at all. As a comparison, with AoD I've clocked nearly 300 hours of playtime on Steam, and in that span of time I actually forgot how many times I've played and finished the game. If I have to guess, could be around 20 times, probably more. I might have experienced every single content that AoD has to offer, but I'm sure I haven't experience different combat build and hybrids that's possible to make. Meanwhile, I've clocked nearly 400 hours of Underrail playtime, and in that span of time I've only finished the game twice, in addition to having couple of abandoned playthroughs. I don't mean this comparison as which one I preferred the most; I love both equally and for different reasons, both are definitely two sides of an extreme (teleportation vs. backtracking, for example), and should definitely be praised for being able to take strong points of RPGs as a genre and make it shines brighter than in most, if not all RPGs that came out in recent years.
 

Deleted Member 22431

Guest
Drowed,

The result of this emphasis on emergent gameplay means that the gameworlds become more goofy, and prone to players’ exploitation in order to pander to their egos. In order to allow the player more freedom, you make it less meaningful, because all becomes made-up gamey bullshit anyways. It’s not just a matter of whether is harder to implement or not. There is a merit in scripting design that you refuse to acknowledge out of sheer stubbornness.

This emphasis on emergent gameplay also means you have less and less narrative impact in the gameworld. For instance, in “Fallout" you can convince the Master to kill himself. That’s awesome. The fact that some developer decided that I could choose this path, or that it’s a dialogue choice instead of walking around doing menial shit, doesn’t make less awesome. Age of Decadence took this type of choices to another level, and turned into an art form. Not only you have tons of narrative choices, but the gameworld will force you to make these choices, because it has its own agenda. Consequently, you have less cheesing, exploitation and goofy shit, but you have more interesting choices and narrative impact, and the gameworld feels more plausible, meaningful.

Players will feel trapped if they are bullheading in the gameworld thinking that they are the boss and that the developer is their bitch, as it is usually the case in 99% of the cRPGs. Don’t blame Vault Dweller. Blame the other developers that corrupted them by pandering to their egos and treating character creation as fluffy and the gameworld as an ego pandering park. They need to be really shortsighted to ignore how cool these scripted scenarios are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Drowed

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
1,676
Location
Core City
It's just that I disagree with Roguey's notion that the paths available for players in the game is only VD/ITS's paths, when it's exactly just like that in other RPGs. It's just the limitation that ITS put upon players in AoD felt more tight and rigid because of their chosen system.

But this is literally my point: it's not exactly like any other RPG. Sure, in a vague sense, we can say that you "can only do in a game what the creator has allowed," but again, there is a significant difference of vision and design here. Every game will have certain limitations because that is the very nature of a game, it's a product created by someone and what you can do inside of it will always be limited by the tools that its creator offered. But when you say that other games have a system that is just "more loose," that's when you're missing the point. It is precisely this difference between the "flexibility" and "rigidity" of systems that defines the nature of the game.

Again, you said that you disagree when Rouge said that the only available paths for players in the game are the ones that VD offers - but isn't this literally the case? And I didn't just show you this? I'll go back again to the two examples I've used. I can only steal from the specific NPCs (which can be counted on the hands) that VD has defined within the game. He didn't create a theft mechanic, where you can interact with the characters through it. He has created a list of X characters where, during a dialogue, if you have the skill high enough, you will have an option to steal. You literally can only act within the game solely and exclusively in the exact situation scripted by ITs, because there is no real system behind these interactions: there is no system for stealing or stealth. But there are combat and crafting systems in the game, even though they appear in a more limited form than in other games.

And when you say it is exactly just like that in other RPGs, I literally gave you an example that shows that it isn't - when I spoke of that quest in Underrail. I literally did something that Styg had not thought of, so much so that he needed to make an adjustment in the game to reflect my choice. This is because, again, in games like Underrail you interact with the world through specific mechanics, and each new mechanic is a new level of abstraction and possible interaction. Obviously there will always be limits within the game based on its design - you cannot break a wall in Fallout to access another area because there is no hit-point mechanics for objects in the environment, but there is mechanics for other types of interaction. When a game is created organically, creators often have no idea of all the possible ramifications of what they are offering - "it's not a bug, it's a feature" as we say.

I'm not saying that Underrail is better than AOD. Although Underrail actually has more systems than AOD, the number of solutions to the quests is obviously lower. But when you talk about freedom within these two games, we're talking about two completely different types of freedom. The freedom in a game like Underrail, or Fallout, or ATOM, or Morrowind, or other similar games, is in the ability to use different systems to interact with the game in your own way - even if the story itself doesn't have so much variation in the end. Freedom in AOD can be described in the great variation of different solutions for each quest in the game, but you will still arrive at each of these quests following a very specific rail. Possibly, the "ideal" RPG would be the one that could offer the fusion of the two things: different systems to interact with the world, but also, quests with several different solutions which lead to very distinct paths within the game.

FAST EDIT:

Drowed,

The result of this emphasis on emergent gameplay means that the gameworlds become more goofy, and prone to players’ exploitation in order to pander to their egos. In order to allow the player more freedom, you make it less meaningful, because all becomes made-up gamey bullshit anyways. It’s not just a matter of whether is harder to implement or not. There is a merit in scripting design that you refuse to acknowledge out of sheer stubbornness.

I find it funny because I actually agree with you fully, I don't know where you think I don't see merit in games like AOD. I actually quite like it. (I mean, I don't think the game being more "gamey" is necessarily a bad thing, either.)
 
Last edited:

Deleted Member 22431

Guest
Drowed I agree with you overall, but I didn't miss the point. AoD indeed force players to play by their system of dialogue-esque window/gamebook format.
That's not it. What is really at issue here is that players want the gameworld to be their own themepark. The NPCs need to be stupid and they should be allowed to do menial degenerate things instead of having the genuine freedom to make real choices. If you add to that the fact that cRPGs are not used to take stats and skills seriously outside of combat, then some of them will feel even more frustrated. They are not used to be punished for having the wrong stats and skills, because these things never mattered outside of combat, despite being present in the character screen. For once it matters and they complain. They don't want this character building shit fucking their gameplay. There is also the negativity bias. People feel more affected by things of a more negative nature. So they need to be punished only once to close themselves into a shell of fear and protection. This is a real problem because Age of Decadence rewards players for taking risks and opening new branches, but some players are so oversensitive to negativity that their gameplay experience will be awful. That is because they were never really punished in most cRPGs. Thus, the real root of the problem are misguided expectations about the gameworld, the choices and the character building coupled by oversentibility to punishment.
 

Curratum

Guest
AoD is the best CRPG of the last 15 years, but only if you're strictly autistic and enjoy games that split lockpick, steal and traps in 3 different skills, while also having discrete skills for shit like 'perform', 'streetwise' and 'etiquette'.

In short, it's only so great if you're the worst kind of human refuse that lives in the codex and that thinks CRPGS ended with Sirtech's closure.
 

Black Angel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Wonderland
But this is literally my point: it's not exactly like any other RPG. Sure, in a vague sense, we can say that you "can only do in a game what the creator has allowed," but again, there is a significant difference of vision and design here. Every game will have certain limitations because that is the very nature of a game, it's a product created by someone and what you can do inside of it will always be limited by the tools that its creator offered. But when you say that other games have a system that is just "more loose," that's when you're missing the point. It is precisely this difference between the "flexibility" and "rigidity" of systems that defines the nature of the game.

Again, you said that you disagree when Rouge said that the only available paths for players in the game are the ones that VD offers - but isn't this literally the case? And I didn't just show you this? I'll go back again to the two examples I've used. I can only steal from the specific NPCs (which can be counted on the hands) that VD has defined within the game. He didn't create a theft mechanic, where you can interact with the characters through it. He has created a list of X characters where, during a dialogue, if you have the skill high enough, you will have an option to steal. You literally can only act within the game solely and exclusively in the exact situation scripted by ITs, because there is no real system behind these interactions: there is no system for stealing or stealth. But there are combat and crafting systems in the game, even though they appear in a more limited form than in other games.
When I say that AoD is the exact same as other RPGs, I mean that every quest have multiple solution that exist to accommodate different playstyle and archetype. It doesn't matter if it's only VD's paths, because it's the same as other RPGs. That's literally it, really, and Roguey's post implies that he didn't think that's the case and that AoD behaved like an actual CYOA. Take your previous example of getting Grover to pay up his money protection, and forget the option to sneak and steal the item instead of forcibly taking it away, for a moment. Styg only put several solution to this quest, and those are literally the only solution that he offers for players to choose; much like VD and AoD.

I don't disagree that VD-ITS's approach with their system is vastly different compared to other RPGs; in fact, I admitted as much in my previous post (the ability to click on whatever and whenever we want vs. choosing options provided in a dialogue-esque window/gamebook format). Despite all that, the fundamental is still the same: they are all computer role-playing games. The notion that its approach to the genre makes AoD a CYOA is absurd to me, which is what I get from Roguey's post. It's like saying Fallout is an adventure game just because it features a mechanic from that genre and having non-combat gameplay significantly involving it (the ability to left-click at interactable objects and NPCs on screen and choose what kind of interaction you want to perform with them, like Look At, Use Item At, Use Skill At, Talk With, etc etc).

And when you say it is exactly just like that in other RPGs, I literally gave you an example that shows that it isn't - when I spoke of that quest in Underrail. I literally did something that Styg had not thought of, so much so that he needed to make an adjustment in the game to reflect my choice. This is because, again, in games like Underrail you interact with the world through specific mechanics, and each new mechanic is a new level of abstraction and possible interaction. Obviously there will always be limits within the game based on its design - you cannot break a wall in Fallout to access another area because there is no hit-point mechanics for objects in the environment, but there is mechanics for other types of interaction. When a game is created organically, creators often have no idea of all the possible ramifications of what they are offering - "it's not a bug, it's a feature" as we say.
That's because the opportunity exists as far as the mechanic is up to accommodate for it. Now, let's say you want to tell Treasa the truth; that Grover is severely in need of money to pay protection of the Black Eels and he wants to take her Plasma Core for that; or lie and deceive Treasa that Grover is simply out for her blood. You want Treasa to kill Grover and leave his corpse in that back alley, allowing YOU to take his head without having to do it by yourself. But it's not possible, because there is no Streetwise/Deception skill. Just now, I booted up the game and tried talking it out to Treasa, but there aren't even any opportunity to use either Persuasion or Intimidation to convince Treasa to just give the Plasma Core to me.
It's just like that in any other RPGs, and just like you said, there will always be limits within the game based on its design. AoD limits all interaction it has to offer within the confinement of its approach, but I don't think it means the game is 'more CYOA than RPG' like some people insinuates, especially since the basic is the exact same (invest in a set of skill -> encounter opportunities to use them to experience content -> pass or fail the checks, then get content based on the results).

As for stealing mechanics, most of you are confusing AoD for Skyrim. Skyrim allows you to steal from anyone. Did that make it a good game?
Eh, Underrail allows us to steal from anyone, and it DOES make it a good game. Especially because the pickpocketing mechanic of Underrail is designed in such a way that it can't be abused by savescumming. Just take Drowed's example above, he could use the stealing mechanic to solve a quest that way, but previously that solution wasn't even thought of by Styg, but since the mechanic CAN accommodate it, Styg finally implement it as a legit solution (as in, the game recognizes such solution).

Still, I'd assume the reason why ITS didn't allow us to steal from just about any NPCs that there is in the game is due to engine's limitation of some sort. Just now, I tried playing the game at the lowest graphical options, and every NPCs that has no content to offer appears as literal cardboard.
That, or there's thematic consideration they have in mind: the world of AoD's been in dipshit for a long while, so not everyone got anything worth a nickel to steal. Yes, it's rather limited that you can only steal from people sleeping in the inn or from merchants in marketplaces, but it fits thematically.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
For example, in Fallout you can activate the Dynamite item in your inventory and set a time. However, by using the Steal skill, you can access inventories of other characters. Combining the two, you can access inventories of various characters and plant Dynamite within them and move away, just waiting for them to explode.
And that's all you can do. You can access NPCs' inventories, so you can steal things and plant other things there, which is nice but limited in application. The rest is scripted. Can you seal an entrance with dynamite? Once, in a scripted event. Can you climb over fences? No, you have to run around the map. Can you use your repair skill on any broken object? No, only on few specific objects. How many options do you get when you're asked to free the Brotherhood initiate who was captured in the Hub? Can you "get them drunk with beer to lower their perception/ranged accuracy, plant timed explosives on their bodies, then mop up from a more advantageous position", Roguey?

Fallout is a great game but it's hardly a poster child for emergent gameplay or "organic design'.

Games like AOD offer several options, yeah, but these options usually follow a pre-determined script. It's no surprise therefore that many players feel trapped on a rail when they play the game. It still can be a good, fun and well written rail, of course.
The reason some players felt "trapped" is because these options had skill requirements so you couldn't play the game the way you felt like at the moment but had to stick with what your character was good at.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Still, I'd assume the reason why ITS didn't allow us to steal from just about any NPCs that there is in the game is due to engine's limitation of some sort. Just now, I tried playing the game at the lowest graphical options, and every NPCs that has no content to offer appears as literal cardboard.
The engine would have slowed down to unplayable crawl had we had proper NPCs with inventories walking around but that's not the real reason. I remember pickpocketing everyone in PST, it was very profitable and my inventory was full of golden rings and bracelets, but it also felt like a chore. Click on the skill, then on the NPC, reload if he goes hostile, rinse and repeat. It was barely more engaging than clicking on containers in Skyrim. Sure, you could steal something cool a few times but it was always scripted (i.e. a quest-related item was placed in someone's inventory so that you could steal it), might as well do it via dialogues.
 

Drowed

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
1,676
Location
Core City
That's because the opportunity exists as far as the mechanic is up to accommodate for it. Now, let's say you want to tell Treasa the truth; that Grover is severely in need of money to pay protection of the Black Eels and he wants to take her Plasma Core for that; or lie and deceive Treasa that Grover is simply out for her blood. You want Treasa to kill Grover and leave his corpse in that back alley, allowing YOU to take his head without having to do it by yourself.

And here you are entering into another system, which is the dialog system, and C&C. Underrail doesn't have a very advanced dialog/C&C system. Anything that involves a solution where you could give a spoken answer, an interaction, will not be well represented in the game. But it isn't about this system that we are talking about, but about the others ones. I already noticed from your posts that you put an absurd weight on the dialogue system, and that's great, it's a choice and a preference of yours. But no matter how many options you put in the dialog system, this doesn't increase the total number of interactions of other systems in the game.

Essentially, when you talk about playstyle, you're talking about the "mental archetype I have of my character." But when we talk about playstyle, we are also talking about what kind of mechanics we can use to accomplish the same event to achieve the same result. For example, in a game like AOD, you can have 5 possible "solutions" to a quest: let's say, collect an item to use as a bribe, kill the enemy in a combat, convince people around you to help you in combat, use diplomacy for him let go or use your stealth to go unnoticed. However, all 5 forms of interaction will happen the same way: you will approach the area where the NPC is and a dialog box will open. The system that is being used here is the dialog system, and only that. Now in a game like... Say, Skyrim. Your only solution to the quest will be to kill the NPC. There are no other solutions, period. However, you can kill him in close combat. Or you can attack him and lure him up a cliff where he will fall and die. Or you can climb a nearby mountain out of his reach and kill him using your bow. You have only one solution to the event, which is combat, but you can approach this solution in several different ways.

That is the crucial difference of the matter. AOD is extremely "vast" in a single system, which is the dialogue/C&C system. But for many people, this system isn't enough for them to feel free.

(...) Fallout is a great game but it's hardly a poster child for emergent gameplay or "organic design'.

I completely agree, but that wasn't the point, VD.

The reason some players felt "trapped" is because these options had skill requirements so you couldn't play the game the way you felt like at the moment but had to stick with what your character was good at.

I cannot speak of others, but for example, I felt absolutely restricted when, in Maadoran, despite having stealth and critical strike considered very high, when I went to meet with Quintus, I couldn't use my stealth and attack to kill the two NPCs by surprise. I don't have the option to start combat when and how I want, on my own terms.
 

Black Angel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Wonderland
And here you are entering into another system, which is the dialog system, and C&C. Underrail doesn't have a very advanced dialog/C&C system. Anything that involves a solution where you could give a spoken answer, an interaction, will not be well represented in the game. But it isn't about this system that we are talking about, but about the others ones. I already noticed from your posts that you put an absurd weight on the dialogue system, and that's great, it's a choice and a preference of yours. But no matter how many options you put in the dialog system, this doesn't increase the total number of interactions of other systems in the game.

....

For example, in a game like AOD, you can have 5 possible "solutions" to a quest: let's say, collect an item to use as a bribe, kill the enemy in a combat, convince people around you to help you in combat, use diplomacy for him let go or use your stealth to go unnoticed. However, all 5 forms of interaction will happen the same way: you will approach the area where the NPC is and a dialog box will open.
Ah, and that's where I disagree with you. It isn't right to say AoD presented its options and let interaction happened through 'dialogue box', but rather they presented it, as Zed Duke said, in 'gamebook way'. Or the simplest term as I mentioned, 'dialogue-esque window'. 'Dialogue' suggest conversation between two or more people, but I guess you can say non-conversational 'dialogue' that happens in AoD during scripted events can be taken as a dialogue between the players and a DM (ITS)... which means the game is as much of an RPG as any other.

I know you made it clear that this system isn't enough for some people to feel free, but remember when I brought up how calling AoD a 'CYOA' just because of this is like calling Fallout an 'adventure game' simply because of its non-combat gameplay feature? I'm sure thanks to that feature, you felt more freedom that you can plant dynamite on NPCs or make them drunk with alcohol. However, some people felt this feature is unnecessary, and it's tedious for them having to open Skill Dex, click on Lockpicking, and then click on locked doors/containers to pick those locks. They'd rather just click on the locked doors/containers, and then the skill immediately work to pass the checks. Same with other non-combat gameplay, they'd rather click a few times and have the game immediately register their input, instead of having to click a few more times to achieve what interaction they have in mind.
 

Drowed

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
1,676
Location
Core City
Ah, and that's where I disagree with you. It isn't right to say AoD presented its options and let interaction happened through 'dialogue box', but rather they presented it, as Zed Duke said, in 'gamebook way'. Or the simplest term as I mentioned, 'dialogue-esque window'.

Well, yeah, I believe that "gamebooks" are essentially dialogue systems. If you disagree, we will have to agree to disagree here, because for me the system is the "way you interact with the game world." Every and any interaction done through a messaging/dialog, to me, is an example of the dialogue system.

The Lone Wolf gamebooks are, for me, just books - no matter how many distinct paths and C&C exist within them. You couldn't call Fallout an adventure game because it actually has a combat system and the freedom to walk where you want, just as AOD isn't only a CYOA because it also has a combat system and that same freedom. But Fallout actually has more systems in action (combat, dialogue, stealth, theft), while AOD, as far as I can remember, only has 3: crafting, dialogue, and combat. With an intense focus on one of them.

I know you made it clear that this system isn't enough for some people to feel free, but remember when I brought up how calling AoD a 'CYOA' just because of this is like calling Fallout an 'adventure game' simply because of its non-combat gameplay feature? I'm sure thanks to that feature, you felt more freedom that you can plant dynamite on NPCs or make them drunk with alcohol. However, some people felt this feature is unnecessary, and it's tedious for them having to open Skill Dex, click on Lockpicking, and then click on locked doors/containers to pick those locks. They'd rather just click on the locked doors/containers, and then the skill immediately work to pass the checks. Same with other non-combat gameplay, they'd rather click a few times and have the game immediately register their input, instead of having to click a few more times to achieve what interaction they have in mind.

This is where we come into the point of personal taste. Some people like one thing, some like another. Obviously, we will see people who feel that games like AOD are extremely restricted. Others will feel the exact opposite, that AOD is one of the games that has offered the most freedom in recent decades. It just depends on your taste and what "freedom" format you are looking for in the game.
 
Unwanted

Micormic

Unwanted
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
939
Drowed,

The result of this emphasis on emergent gameplay means that the gameworlds become more goofy, and prone to players’ exploitation in order to pander to their egos. In order to allow the player more freedom, you make it less meaningful, because all becomes made-up gamey bullshit anyways. It’s not just a matter of whether is harder to implement or not. There is a merit in scripting design that you refuse to acknowledge out of sheer stubbornness.

This emphasis on emergent gameplay also means you have less and less narrative impact in the gameworld. For instance, in “Fallout" you can convince the Master to kill himself. That’s awesome. The fact that some developer decided that I could choose this path, or that it’s a dialogue choice instead of walking around doing menial shit, doesn’t make less awesome. Age of Decadence took this type of choices to another level, and turned into an art form. Not only you have tons of narrative choices, but the gameworld will force you to make these choices, because it has its own agenda. Consequently, you have less cheesing, exploitation and goofy shit, but you have more interesting choices and narrative impact, and the gameworld feels more plausible, meaningful.

Players will feel trapped if they are bullheading in the gameworld thinking that they are the boss and that the developer is their bitch, as it is usually the case in 99% of the cRPGs. Don’t blame Vault Dweller. Blame the other developers that corrupted them by pandering to their egos and treating character creation as fluffy and the gameworld as an ego pandering park. They need to be really shortsighted to ignore how cool these scripted scenarios are.


Dude no one is impressed with you and no one cares about fanboys.
 
Unwanted

Micormic

Unwanted
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
939
For example, in Fallout you can activate the Dynamite item in your inventory and set a time. However, by using the Steal skill, you can access inventories of other characters. Combining the two, you can access inventories of various characters and plant Dynamite within them and move away, just waiting for them to explode.
And that's all you can do. You can access NPCs' inventories, so you can steal things and plant other things there, which is nice but limited in application. The rest is scripted. Can you seal an entrance with dynamite? Once, in a scripted event. Can you climb over fences? No, you have to run around the map. Can you use your repair skill on any broken object? No, only on few specific objects. How many options do you get when you're asked to free the Brotherhood initiate who was captured in the Hub? Can you "get them drunk with beer to lower their perception/ranged accuracy, plant timed explosives on their bodies, then mop up from a more advantageous position", Roguey?

Fallout is a great game but it's hardly a poster child for emergent gameplay or "organic design'.

Games like AOD offer several options, yeah, but these options usually follow a pre-determined script. It's no surprise therefore that many players feel trapped on a rail when they play the game. It still can be a good, fun and well written rail, of course.
The reason some players felt "trapped" is because these options had skill requirements so you couldn't play the game the way you felt like at the moment but had to stick with what your character was good at.



Fallout is still better then anything you have or will produce. ;)
 
Unwanted

Micormic

Unwanted
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
939
Dude no one is impressed with you and no one cares about fanboys.
That hurts. I think I will leave the internet forever because of your post.

Fallout is still better then anything you have or will produce.
Now Vault Dweller will never make another cRPG because of your post.


I wouldn't like that because I still enjoyed AOD enough to purchase his colony ship game.

I don't see why he's trying to insult a game that's objectively better then his in every way though.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Saying that Fallout isn't a poster child for emergent gameplay while calling it a great game is hardly an insult, is it?
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,653
How many options do you get when you're asked to free the Brotherhood initiate who was captured in the Hub? Can you "get them drunk with beer to lower their perception/ranged accuracy, plant timed explosives on their bodies, then mop up from a more advantageous position", Roguey?
They are hostile on sight, unlike the marks in the house, however
The guards can either be attacked through the front door of the house or shot at through a window on the northern wall of the building.

More observant and cautious players can attack from the window rather than barge in through the front door like a superhero (though one can leave some dynamite in front of the door set to go off after a turn or two, open it, and then run off, leading at least one into it). Additionally, while my memory is a bit fuzzy on this, I believe it's possible with a high enough stealth skill to just walk right past them, unlock the door, and rescue the guy without having any fight (though Fallout's stealth skill is unnecessarily random and prone to failure). Alternately, use the stealth skill to get close enough to the shotgun chump to point-blank burst him to death so you have an easier time of dealing with the rest.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,123
Far as I'm concerned if you can't do thieving skills and systems properly, you should not have stealth at all. And that applies to AoD as well as sadly most RPGs who just put the steal/sneak there and it just sits there being mostly useless.

And no, adding a skill check for steal in a scripted interaction is not a solution.
 

Generic-Giant-Spider

Guest
Far as I'm concerned if you can't do thieving skills and systems properly, you should not have stealth at all. And that applies to AoD as well as sadly most RPGs who just put the steal/sneak there and it just sits there being mostly useless.

And no, adding a skill check for steal in a scripted interaction is not a solution.

I can get with that. The only game that felt like stealing and stealthing was satisfying was Thief for me. Most times thievery feels kind of gimmicky (the pickpocketing and such primarily) and tends to be more hassle than it's worth. So many RPGs tend to put thieves in the assassin style role by default where they can sneak up and get an insane backstab critical but don't really explore many things that would make them a thief.

The assassin style is "okay" but it feels like an easy way out for a class that can offer a totally different playstyle in and out of combat. I understand why they do it though since it'd be tons of work to really try and nail the feel of.

Personally, I liked Kingdom Come Deliverance's approach to stealing skills such as lockpicking and pickpocketing. It's probably my favourite in-game interpretation in quite a long time come to think of it.
 

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