"Deciding who is wrong and who is right"

[aweigh]

I'd prefer multiple ways to kill the dragon.

 

[fantadomat]

It seems to me that C&C is incompatible with most mainstream RPGs because of how limited their narrative scope is.

If your plot is 'kill the baddy dragon' then there's very little room to maneuver in that narrative space.

1 Kill the dragon and collect from the villagers
2 Let/help the dragon eat the villagers
3 Robe everything and run leaving them deal with it
4 Negotiate with the dragon to help the villagers to open an amusement park
5 Romance the dragon and become the dad of the dragonborn
6 Do every other side quest and eventually forget about this one

 

[Lurker47]

If your plot is 'kill the baddy dragon' then there's very little room to maneuver in that narrative space.

I think it's the exact opposite tbh; the more open your goal is, the more there is to change besides that.

 

[Crichton]

I'm a big fan of providing the player with alternatives but I agree that there is often a paucity of worthwhile options. Most rpg C&C falls into one of two categories:

1) Manichean: Destroy the Star Forge / Use the Star Forge
Kill the King of Shadows / Join the King of Shadows
Defeat Caesar / Join Caesar

I think the issue here is obvious, one of the choices is garbage. Who wants to join the King of Shadows? The option to play as a selfish manchild doesn't add much unless you're into shaking down peasants for pennies. You take the traditional RPG story (man saves world from dragon) and add a shitty alternative (man allows dragon to eat world).

2) Grey Wastes: Serve Human Fascists / Serve Nonhuman Terrorists
Save Highpool, Destroy Ag Center / Save Ag Center, Destroy Highpool
Give Aufra false hope / Crush Aufra's spirit

I think this is a logical response to the Black/White C&C, it attempts to create a better balanced set of choices. The problem is that instead of providing two equally good narrative options, the writers provide two equally shitty ones! You don't need a play a game to try to do something good and get an unsatisfying outcome, most people get plenty of that from real life.

So what do good C&C look like?

Fallout NV: House Always Wins / No Gods, No Masters / Pro-NCR Ending, all work in one way or another.
NWN2: Khelgar becoming a monk and Khelgar realizing it was more about the journey than the destination, both good narratives.
Pillars: Returning souls to hollowborn / putting the souls back in the wheel, both 'good' options

Rather than simply adding options until you hit some arbitrary number of endings, there should be a real focus on having multiple satisfying alternatives. Sometimes that means that you'll have to limit the scope of the choices somewhat, but I would much rather have some quality side-quests than garbage like the NWN Thieves Guild plotline.

 

[RNGsus]

I'd like to see more c&c emerge from gameplay, developing on proc gen quests, rather than narrative. If my dood's questing and shit for commoners on his own, the authorities might take me for a rebel or usurper. So they put a bounty out, question people, or if I rolled a noble they inquire after me. Something. If I get caught murdering or stealing, but I have the syndicate's approval, they pull some strings and I'm free in an hour. Or I do time, but my stats are ok and belongings are taken care of. I don't know, something like that.

Also, factions typically are often too damn big, so they make them accessible with narrative-driven quests. There can be a place for that, but in the games I like most I'm not around at the center of a narrative. Or I'm not deciding the fates of nations. "Join" the NCR? They're a fucking country. I'm the dude.

edit 2: with a lot of story c&c it feels like I'm the mcguffin everybody's at least tacitly trying to claim for their side. They are w/o agency or necessity on their own, and they need me.

 

[aweigh]

I don't think proc. generated quests will ever be viable, I mean can you imagine King Content like a randomly spawning mob and you're told to go kill it, or randomly spawned NPC who gives you a package with a random lore-note to take to randomly spawned NPC-B?

Just riveting, right? However I do think proc. generated geography could work, and enough algorithms and shit could eventually make for proc. generated dungeon-type areas worth clearing; so long as there are hand-crafted levels elsewhere, of course. But there's no harm in padding out content with an infinite number of places, I suppose.

That said I also agree with preferring the game play to drive the player's choices and to emphasize a smaller scope that concentrates on square sandboxes and vignettes that interlink with each other, instead of spreading everything around.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

I want one of my choices to lead to a consequence that sees me having realized that I just wasted 30 hours of my life in an RPG that saw me get murdered in a back alley from hired cutthroats and accompanied with a game over screen and a removal of all my saves on that file because either I pissed off the wrong person or had a series of events lead me to that point.

Fuck these pussy consequences like missing out on extra xp or getting a pretty sword. I want me being an ambitious little cunt to be my undoing. Make me learn to live and respect your RPG's world, not let me be its God.

 

[Nutria]

I'm tired of all the "gray, morally ambiguous" crap where everyone turns out to be the bad guy in the end. That might appeal to teenagers who want to act really grown up and cynical, but I actually am grown up and don't need to fake it anymore.

So here's my idea: Have two sides. One is bad. The other is worse. There are some subtle hints about which side are the real bad guys, but you have to actually pay attention to the game to figure it out.

 

[ASTRAL]

It seems to me that C&C is incompatible with most mainstream RPGs because of how limited their narrative scope is.

If your plot is 'kill the baddy dragon' then there's very little room to maneuver in that narrative space.

1 Kill the dragon and collect from the villagers
2 Let/help the dragon eat the villagers
3 Robe everything and run leaving them deal with it
4 Negotiate with the dragon to help the villagers to open an amusement park
5 Romance the dragon and become the dad of the dragonborn
6 Do every other side quest and eventually forget about this one

Open the amusement park and farm the visitors for easy xp and gold

 

[InD_ImaginE]

But thats kinda the whole point of SMT. God (later retconned to be Demiurge) is crazy asshole. The devil/Lucifer is initially portrayed sympathetically, but his ideal world is equally terrible. In SMT 3 besides Law & Chaos you also have a nihillistic Buddhist asshole.

Basically the whole point is, despite the fault of the current system the world is running in, the balance between Law and Chaos is the best. If you went extreme on any of the axis things start to unravel fast.

In the latest SMT4 Armageddon even the Neutral path has 2 options, the classic moderate one, and basically Extrimist Kill Em All Neutral and be Adam and Eve of the new world.

Being extreme is bad and lead to ruination is the whole point of the series. Thats why arguably the best ending in traditional sense is always the neutral ending.


EDIT: And those of you advocating procedural CnC, it will be shit. Game and all programs has internal logic to them. You would probably has 10 variation of 10 different thing all equally uderdeveloped. A game where anything is possible is a game where nothing matters. The ideal reactive world is so far away as it constitutes programming all the possibilities instead of "just make it reactive d00d"

 

[Lhynn]

Thing is: "C&C" has little-to-no bearing on the overall quality of an RPG's game play loop.

Agree, but this is only true if the C&C isnt part of the gameplay.

In tale of wuxia its a mundane, everyday element. Every day you pick what you will do, some days you will run into events, these events will sometimes demand choices, some choices will only be available if you pass checks, these choices will usually affect gameplay in some capacity. The entire game is about the community reacting to the the new guy while

Even in RPG mode, when you are exploring locales, you are constantly presented with choices, or even non-choices, like attacking someone early in the game after they started the fight, just taking the punishment has its rewards later on.

 

[Falksi]

It's all about the journey, not the destination or the outcome. Choice serves to flesh out the possibilities & stimulate imagination & excitement. Yes where it takes us should feel significant to a large degree, but that's not the be-all & end-all.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

A very good gameplay CnC intrgration that I remember is in Silent Hill 3 and Silent Hill Frozen/Silent Memories (forgot the exact title, one where there is 0 combat and somewhat of AU of the first Silent Hill)

In Silent Hill 3 the dark ending has one requirement of you being a murder hobo. Its a scary world and you are trying to survive, yes. But killing abnormal ammount of monsters means there is something wrong with you because at some point you no longer kill to survive and you are activelly seeking something to kill instead.

In Silent Hills Frozen/Silent Memories besides the usual dialogue choices, how you play the game affects the ending. You are a dad looking for his missing daughter in a god forsaken town. The best ending could only be gotten by basically ignoring all the unnecessary shit (somewhat an anti gaming tendencies as well because most gamer checks every nooks and crannies) because SHIT IS URGENT YO. Take too long to do everything is one requiremenr of the worst ending because it implies you dont really care for your family. In retrospect this game triumph over the CnC in both FO4 and TW3, having simillar theme of finding one's offspring but widely deifferent in execution.

 

[Sigourn]

I'm tired of all the "gray, morally ambiguous" crap where everyone turns out to be the bad guy in the end. That might appeal to teenagers who want to act really grown up and cynical, but I actually am grown up and don't need to fake it anymore.

So here's my idea: Have two sides. One is bad. The other is worse. There are some subtle hints about which side are the real bad guys, but you have to actually pay attention to the game to figure it out.

This is what annoys me about "you have to choose between killing an old man or raping a teenage girl". Not only am I unable to rape the teenage girl, but it's clear both sides are bad. At least New Vegas lets you choose between two factions that have good intentions behind all the bad things about them.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

This is what annoys me about "you have to choose between killing an old man or raping a teenage girl". Not only am I unable to rape the teenage girl, but it's clear both sides are bad. At least New Vegas lets you choose between two factions that have good intentions behind all the bad things about them.

Ceasar Legion are batshit insane and the moment Caesar is dead they will be nothing but a band of organized raiders.

 

[Sacred82]

Another reason why I never thought very highly of the whole concept of "choice and consequence", is that very rarely do the choices you make really matter, because they all have to "even out".

This means that in most RPGs that offer this feature, no faction is ever "right", because they are all hiding information and misdeeds from you. Very rarely can you uncover information that can make you think more objectively that one faction is "right", because usually the designers try to make a balanced gameplay experience for everyone.

You don't want the faction to just work in the player's favour. Unless the faction is in extreme distress and you basically have to save it single-handedly. In which case your 'faction' is really like any other questgiver.

They're supposed to be influental and powerful organizations. You're a just a murderhobo stumbling onto their block. They can support you, but they have no reason not to use you towards their own ends. If they're powerful and not about to use you, the most they'd do is give you some alms and send you on your way. What the hell are you asking for? A powerful faction that basically submits to you because they realize... you're the Chosen One?

 

[Sigourn]

This is what annoys me about "you have to choose between killing an old man or raping a teenage girl". Not only am I unable to rape the teenage girl, but it's clear both sides are bad. At least New Vegas lets you choose between two factions that have good intentions behind all the bad things about them.

Ceasar Legion are batshit insane and the moment Caesar is dead they will be nothing but a band of organized raiders.

A Legion of organized raiders doesn't sound that bad though.

 

[RNGsus]

But thats kinda the whole point of SMT. God (later retconned to be Demiurge) is crazy asshole. The devil/Lucifer is initially portrayed sympathetically, but his ideal world is equally terrible. In SMT 3 besides Law & Chaos you also have a nihillistic Buddhist asshole.

Basically the whole point is, despite the fault of the current system the world is running in, the balance between Law and Chaos is the best. If you went extreme on any of the axis things start to unravel fast.

In the latest SMT4 Armageddon even the Neutral path has 2 options, the classic moderate one, and basically Extrimist Kill Em All Neutral and be Adam and Eve of the new world.

Being extreme is bad and lead to ruination is the whole point of the series. Thats why arguably the best ending in traditional sense is always the neutral ending.


EDIT: And those of you advocating procedural CnC, it will be shit. Game and all programs has internal logic to them. You would probably has 10 variation of 10 different thing all equally uderdeveloped. A game where anything is possible is a game where nothing matters. The ideal reactive world is so far away as it constitutes programming all the possibilities instead of "just make it reactive d00d"

Proc gen quest/cnc aren't an ideal, but a matter of practice d00d, and seem further away because few are dabbling in it, so of course it isn't good.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Proc gen quest/cnc aren't an ideal, but a matter of practice d00d, and seem further away because few are dabbling in it, so of course it isn't good.

No the problem is it won't be good because there will be 0 impact. You can have the same problem with widely different results or different problems having the same result.

See CK2 or Mount and Blade, arguably having a simulationist part. Is there a C&C there? Yeah. But all of them are not impactfull in narrative sense. There is no investment to the characters because they are caricature whose character are determined with 5 traits.

And there will be no significant anything because what supposed to be a big event will probably happen again 6 hours down the gameplay due everything being systemic.

If you think the average writer is banal, a systemic proc gen quest/cnc will even be more banal. Its there, but its meaningless noise.

 

[RNGsus]

I care less about a dev's story in games now than I ever have with good reason, and nothing would make me happier than to see our average vidya writers replaced by programs. Anyhow, this isn't some great dilemma.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I'm tired of all the "gray, morally ambiguous" crap where everyone turns out to be the bad guy in the end. That might appeal to teenagers who want to act really grown up and cynical, but I actually am grown up and don't need to fake it anymore.

So here's my idea: Have two sides. One is bad. The other is worse. There are some subtle hints about which side are the real bad guys, but you have to actually pay attention to the game to figure it out.

This is what bothers me.

Suppose you made an RPG about the war in Cambodia. You can either play the side of the Americans or the Khmer Rouge. If this was designed in typical RPG fashion, the soldiers of the Khmer Rouge would make the Americans look like the real villains, and the uprooting of the whole Cambodian society and slaughter of millions of individuals like "no big deal".

If you want to play to help the Khmer Rouge win the war, you can. But it's obvious in this case you would support a ruthless moral dictatorship with warped ideals, and that as imperfect as the Americans would be, they would much more likely to be the good guys.

 

[JarlFrank]

If we want real C&C in games we need to do away with linear sequential mainquest lines and replace them with a decentralized modular goal-centered main quest.

Rather than giving the player a line of quests that will be the same on each playthough, like, say, first being sent to the wizards to get their help, then being sent to the dungeon to get the magic sword, then being sent to the caves to get the magic shield, then breaking into the embassy to find out the location of the evil overlord's base, then assaulting the base and confronting the evil overlord, we should give the player a more loosely structured goal-based quest to follow. Which, if we run with the same simple story outlined in my example, would simply be: confront and stop the evil overlord.

All the linear "first do X then Y then Z" stuff would be removed and replaced with optional quests. You'd recieve the quest to deal with the evil overlord right away. Also some hints that getting the magic sword and the magic shield would be useful, that the wizards might provide assistance, and that the embassy might house some allies of the overlord whom you could interrogate. And then, it's up to you how you tackle it.

Much easier to give each of these quests its own self-contained C&C, or even to make each of these quests influence each other in some ways, when they're all on the same "layer" rather than stacked upon each other in a sequential questline.

 

[RNGsus]

Basically shipping a plot rather than a story.

 

[fantadomat]

I believe that the current C&C system is the best one,it should be improved rather than changed. Too much C&C could make a game tedious and annoying,second guessing every choice you make is bad. Having a strong and well written narrative with a lot of side content and c&c is good. ELEX did have rather surprising c&c,i was surprised when i did a few quests and next time i visited the city there was a pile of corpses in front the gates. Kingdom come did have a bunch of small and realistic c&c.

 

[DalekFlay]

Are you going to say New Vegas' combat is fantastic?
Are you going to say New Vegas' graphics are great?
Are you going to say New Vegas' is brimming with stuff to discover?

New Vegas is my favorite RPG of all time, but only because mods exist. What makes New Vegas good is the writing and the quest design (+ writing in all its incarnatinos), everything else is garbage.

Never modded the game other than the UI and I think the shooting and exploration are just fine. Granted on the shooting front that could be because I always play a sniper type character so I'm not flailing about in close quarters, but popping moles with the cowboy rifle works just fine. World looks like a barren desert hell hole but it's supposed to. New Vegas itself is probably the only bummer, but every mod I looked at that made it all one zone and whatnot also fucked up scripting and quests. Not worth it.