An assessment of Oblivion after having first played Skyrim, then Morrowind

[Wayward Son]

Both statements merit my brofist aweigh.

 

[Ventidius]

in the latter thread many have pointed out that the interactivty and reactivity unique to the video game (and thus, the RPG) allows for a deeper brand of story telling that can combine all of the tools found in books and in movies (visual geometry, negative space + dialog, prose, etc) and use the video game's ability for interactivty as a way to allow the player to choose how, when and why use these tools and thus allow true "video game storytelling".

Easy examples are stuff like the "scenes" found in Bethesda games, but more specifically done best in Obsidian's F:NV, where you will stumble upon some scenario with shit that happened and it ties into an overarching theme or narrative, and usually contains interactive elements that can be found such as hidden items or whatnot, but even though they are additive these "scenes" are still (mostly) entirely optional and tell a story without any dialog.

obviously film can do the above as well, but it can't tie the scene into the experience of interactivity in the way a video game can; the video game will turn that scene into a chimera of expression from the creators whereas a film cannot and indeed, it should be as narrow as possible in its intent of authorial contract.

You are right that games allow for a great deal of storytelling possibilities than you cannot find in other media. That said, games also introduce a couple of difficulties for storytelling:

1) The game designer has to take into account the player and the actions of the player in his game, thus, a game is not a pure work of artistic expression in the same sense that a film or a book or a painting are because his own expression is to some extent muddled or mitigated by the actions of the player. In most other media, the audience is, for the most part, passive, except in so far as they have to make an effort to understand the message that is being transmitted to them. However, they still cannot influence what is given to them, they can only influence their own receptivity to it. In games, one can to some extent modify the way the message expresses itself(a simple example, a player could critical path a game, thus choosing not to see much of what has been put into it). Also, the developer has to consider how the game plays from the point of view of his audience, and tailor the medium, and perhaps even the message, accordingly. In a sense, in games the audience "invades" the producer's creative space in a way in which other media don't. This might be a possible piece of the puzzle in explaining why games don't have Dostoyevskys and Stendhals: the artist's capacity to express himself is limited because, to an extent, it is shared (even if he still gets the lion's share of influence).

2) There is a technical barrier of entry to games that is not there in other media such as books and painting (though film is similar). It takes certain specific technical skills to program a game and it is generally unlikely that a person who has the basic skills to program a game will also have the literary capacities of an actual writer. Sure, games tend to have both teams of writers and programmers, but even in the best of cases it is unlikely that the talented writers will be given more, or maybe even equal, say on major decisions that affect the storytelling that is necessary to really make something special. To a large extent, game writing will always be colored by the techies who are necessary to make games at all. Thus it is also a matter of the way the industry is structured, and in that connection one also has to consider many actually good writers consider writing for games beneath them.

3) Games are also meant to offer a competent mechanical experience, which includes not only stimulation of the imagination and the senses (the gateway for aesthetic elements), but also exercise of one's cognitive faculties. In that sense games are no different from sports, since sports are meant not only to be fun and entertaining, but also exercise one's body, or at least one's reflexes. Sports are not mere bodybuilding, but they are supposed to exercise us to at least some extent. Games, too, should challenge the mind in at least some way. This doesn't mean they have to be only about mental exercise - we would be doing math exercises instead - but a strong element of mental challenge and problem solving has to be there. This is yet another factor that makes the expression of the artist more difficult since he has to incorporate his art within a robust mechanical system.

EDIT: I am not saying that it is impossible for games to have quality storytelling, just pointing out some of the potential limitations of the medium.

Also, I forgot to comment on this on my last post due to my being in a hurry, and it is a particularly interesting topic:

wizardry 7 introduced a huge overworld that features plenty of "exploration" coupled with a new Cartography aspect and skill system, but I consider the other Wizardries, or a game like Dungeon Master (to give an example), to feature better exploration for an RPG player than wandering around and stumbling across villages/ruins.

Your opinion on Wizardry 7 seems to be basically the same as mine: they tried to make the franchise more like Might and Magic and focused on overworld exploration rather than dungeons, with the result being one of the most classic cases of the unfocused game design syndrome that I discussed above in RPG history. And not only did they try to transition from dungeons to overworld, but they also tried to throw in some questing and reactivity elements to boot, and the result was that the games ended up being all over the place and the strongest element of the classic games - dungeon design - was weakened beyond repair. The world of Wiz 7 in particular is a drag to explore, it is very repetitive and uninteresting, at least 6 still had some remnants of solid dungeon design thrown in. Wiz 7 tried to bite more than it could chew and ended up being unremarkable in most areas. It still could not compete with the Gold Box games and Sir-Tech's own Jagged Alliance series in terms of tactical combat, its overworld exploration was nowhere near M&M, and the dungeon design - the traditional strength of the franchise - was heavily diluted. I actually think Wizardry 8 (which I have seen treated as the most casual in this forum) managed to pick up the pieces to some extent and by simplifying the unnecessarily convoluted world-building of 7, offered a more focused and fun experience overall, even compensating for the lack of proper dungeon crawling to some extent by improving the combat engine to implement positioning, but it is still not the equal of truly good dungeon crawlers blobbers like Wiz 1 or Elminage Gothic(and even as a combat blobber, it gets beaten by LoT 2), since the exploration, while not tedious like in 7, wasn't particularly great either, and the combat, while arguably improved, was still not enough to carry the game beyond the level of traditional Wiz(it was good game overall, though). So yeah, when I defend overworld exploration as a legitimate design goal in RPGs, Wizardry 7 is not what I have in mind.

 

[aweigh]

(Quoting mechanism is not working hence this method)

Ventidius

The game designer has to take into account the player and the actions of the player in his game, thus, a game is not a pure work of artistic expression in the same sense that a film or a book or a painting are because his own expression is to some extent muddled or mitigated by the actions of the player.

That's called the Authorial Contract, an umbrella term used by pretentious twats like myself who dropped out of Lit. courses years ago, and it encompasses everything from what is currently termed "tone" in a film to the very actions and messages of the characters and the presentation (re: "genre") wherein they exist, plus a lot more that I can't do justice with my explications.

In short, (and probably not 100% accurately), in literature (and film, though this stems from literature) the "author" of any given work of literature has contract with his or her audience in that if they are presenting a comedy, there will be comedy, in that if they set up their lead character in the first portions of the work to give the reader/audience the message that, "oh, the lead character is being characterized both within the structure of the burgeoning narrative framework but also I am receiving a clear message from the author that, due to X/Y/Z events that have transpired in this work I am reading, I can expect a mercurial experience so that if I notice the Lead Character doing X/Y/Z and it seems to "go against" the framework so far setup, the author is asking me, the audience, to trust that it is not due to incompetence but due to delieberateness.

Whether or not there is a "payoff" to anything like what I outlined above is, obviously, up to the gods if you will and the hallmark of a bad or incompentent narrative or story or (although included in the previous terms) failure to characterize competently; the hallmark is always due to a the creator(s) of the work failing to fulfill their end of the Authorial Contract.

In video games, specifically in plot/story/character/prose/haiku heavy sub-genre/template/??? such as that which we deem to be "Errpee...gee?"; in these it becomes delightfully more complicated because the old hat of the authorial contract, which was successfully transplanted to the medium of film for purposes of wasting students time during classes, does not really "fit" properly precisely due to the interactive/reactive nature.

Sidenote: I think I'll stop using "reactivity" from now on as using "interactive" as nomenclature for purposes of definition by definition infers such. In my opinion... it is the excision of a reaction to the interaction that is the outlier in this context, as every video game (good ones, by default) are framed explicitly by it.

I say "by default, good ones" because "bad" video games, and I mean any video game, are easily recognized by a lack of all the properties that the "interactive medium" harnesses.

It can be said, I suppose, and should be said by us Codexers (because nowhere else/no one else is even "woke" enough to discuss this stuff in the context of video gaming); it can be said that in the video game the authorial contract has basically nothing in common with the contract found in literature, and that the video game's authorial contract comprises itself of what you talk about:

Games are also meant to offer a competent mechanical experience, which includes not only stimulation of the imagination and the senses (the gateway for aesthetic elements), but also exercise of one's cognitive faculties.

The authorial contract in a video game... is the same one in a good porn. We all know what I'm inferring, and the parellel is hilariously apt. :D

EDIT: As for...

Your opinion on Wizardry 7

Oh, I fully agree with everything you wrote in your last paragraph, but I tremble like an autist about to kamikaze because I am always up for dissecting in massive walls-of-text the why, what, and how concerning the massive failures in creative design and heart-breaking regression in Bradley's Wiz 6 and Wiz 7, and (although he wasn't involved in it) by extension the (great game that is) Wizardry 8 which managed to make lemonade from the rotten lemon that Bradley left.

If you want (actually I'm gonna do it anyway) I'll copy/paste the most salient parts of my endless tirades about Bradley and Wiz 6/7 in particualr; you can find the bulk of my most recent one inside the Grimoire thread, i can't remember which one, but I think it wasn't the 1000 page mega-thread but some other.

But I don't wanna turn this thread into Bradley/Wizardry walls-of-text, so I'll refrain for now.

EDIT x2: the "Wizardry series" thread in GRPG also has some "gems" from me fighting the almost unwinnable fight against the Wizardry ignoramus, the unwashed masses who only have play experience with Wiz 6-8 and refuse to play or consider classic Wizardry (and by extension modern Wizardry, i.e. JAPANESE Wizardry games, which take after 1-5) because, since they have never played them, they believe to be "primitive" experiences bereft of "role-playing".

I recommend reading that thread alone to watch me go from trying to nicely and intelligently point out and argue why classic Wiz (and the modern Wiz-clone/japanese Wizardry games) are better designed to the nTh degree than the Bradley games to... degenerating into me typing in all caps THAT YOU ALL FUCKING EAT SHIT YOU ARE ALL BIGOT MORONS EATING SHIT FOR BREAKFAST EATING SHIT FOR LUNCH EATING SHIT FOR DINNER--

...to now adopting a stoic, dignified air in my recent posts in that thread not unlike the canine's ability to project nobility when reprimanded for sniffing a butthole.

 

[Cael]

Oh God. Let's not bring in stuff like "the author is dead" because I have a feeling that would trigger a whole bunch of fanbois into gibbering wrecks...

 

[Ventidius]

Thanks for the elucidation on the concept of Authorial Contract, very informative.

Sidenote: I think I'll stop using "reactivity" from now on as using "interactive" as nomenclature for purposes of definition by definition infers such. In my opinion... it is the excision of a reaction to the interaction that is the outlier in this context, as every video game (good ones, by default) are framed explicitly by it.

Well, I think the reason people use this concept is because they want to call attention to the extent that the virtual world and the story acknowledges and gives meaning to the player's actions, without it being necessary for him to "LARP". All games are interactive in a basic sense, but I think this refers to that further layer.

It can be said, I suppose, and should be said by us Codexers (because nowhere else/no one else is even "woke" enough to discuss this stuff in the context of video gaming); it can be said that in the video game the authorial contract has basically nothing in common with the contract found in literature, and that the video game's authorial contract comprises itself of what you talk about:

Games are also meant to offer a competent mechanical experience, which includes not only stimulation of the imagination and the senses (the gateway for aesthetic elements), but also exercise of one's cognitive faculties.

The authorial contract in a video game... is the same one in a good porn. We all know what I'm inferring, and the parellel is hilariously apt. :D

LOL! Yeah, definetely a lot of sensual stimulation in a porn... and in a Bioware game.

EDIT: As for...

Your opinion on Wizardry 7

Oh, I fully agree with everything you wrote in your last paragraph, but I tremble like an autist about to kamikaze because I am always up for dissecting in massive walls-of-text the why, what, and how concerning the massive failures in creative design and heart-breaking regression in Bradley's Wiz 6 and Wiz 7, and (although he wasn't involved in it) by extension the (great game that is) Wizardry 8 which managed to make lemonade from the rotten lemon that Bradley left.

If you want (actually I'm gonna do it anyway) I'll copy/paste the most salient parts of my endless tirades about Bradley and Wiz 6/7 in particualr; you can find the bulk of my most recent one inside the Grimoire thread, i can't remember which one, but I think it wasn't the 1000 page mega-thread but some other.

But I don't wanna turn this thread into Bradley/Wizardry walls-of-text, so I'll refrain for now.

Yeah, I think we have derailed this thread a lot already. Then again, it is an Oblivion thread, so it should count itself lucky we didn't Spider-Man it.

Or better yet...

Spoiler

 

[aweigh]

No, fuck refraining from derailing this thread, this thread had zero value before talking about what can change the nature of the RPG began; before that this thread was just another Roguey thread bereft of any original opinion on his part and in fact, I would go so far as to say that he probably didn't play Oblivion and that he merely strung together words that made sense by using review/forum post tangents excerpted via Google dot com.

This was never an Oblivion thread in truth, and even when talk of RPG-ness began, as always, Roguey only bothered to cite a mangled synthesis of Sawyer-stalked quotes.

It may seem I don't like Roguey, but what I don't like is that he never posits his own opinions and when he does he never explores them for longer than 1 or 2 sentences written in a specific attempt to undermine whoever doesn't agree with his previous Sawyer-talk without any regard for being factual, or at the least for being passionate!

His encyclopeadic knowledge of what pushes most Codexer's buttons allows him to devalue the worth of any discourse thanks to his admittedly genius ability to, in 1 or 2 sentences as mentioned, strawman or deflect any idea that mertis argument while managing to posture himself in an sort of oblique rhetorical highground.

I guess I do like Roguey, at least I like his one thing of being the absolute best (and most subtle, thus best) "troll" in that he never dirties himself in anything even approaching ad hominem but consistently manages to fire troll-shots that are incredibly effective because they hew close to the perceived truth of those with whom he argues against.

For example: when he said that "pre-Bradley Wizardries (aren't RPGs because) don't allow meaningful change of the story--" blah blah.

That troll-blast was incredibly good! He knows it would push all my buttonsand he knows it would be difficult for me to argue effectively because... no existing Wizardry, be they pre-Bradley or post-Bradley, concerns itself (what the Codex deems as) "branching states".

A true masterful troll-shot that I fully respect, managing to trap me in a corner that I could only come out of by investing a fuck-ton of my will-power and energy into crafting many-paragraph long responses explaining everything from what the Wiz series is about to why its design is such and such and why Bradley design is not , etc, etc; and he did it by directing at me a mere 1 sentence rebuttal that, get ready for this:

He knows was/is untrue! But admitting that it wasn't true would necessitate too much text-walling therefore making it nigh unassailable! After wall.. what CAN change a video game story "meaningfully"? lol, talk about a loaded subject.

 

[Cael]

No, fuck refraining from derailing this thread, this thread had zero value before talking about what can change the nature of the RPG began; before that this thread was just another Roguey thread bereft of any original opinion on his part and in fact, I would go so far as to say that he probably didn't play Oblivion and that he merely strung together words that made sense by using review/forum post tangents excerpted via Google dot com.

This was never an Oblivion thread in truth, and even when talk of RPG-ness began, as always, Roguey only bothered to cite a mangled synthesis of Sawyer-stalked quotes.

It may seem I don't like Roguey, but what I don't like is that he never posits his own opinions and when he does he never explores them for longer than 1 or 2 sentences written in a specific attempt to undermine whoever doesn't agree with his previous Sawyer-talk without any regard for being factual, or at the least for being passionate!

His encyclopeadic knowledge of what pushes most Codexer's buttons allows him to devalue the worth of any discourse thanks to his admittedly genius ability to, in 1 or 2 sentences as mentioned, strawman or deflect any idea that mertis argument while managing to posture himself in an sort of oblique rhetorical highground.

I guess I do like Roguey, at least I like his one thing of being the absolute best (and most subtle, thus best) "troll" in that he never dirties himself in anything even approaching ad hominem but consistently manages to fire troll-shots that are incredibly effective because they hew close to the perceived truth of those with whom he argues against.

For example: when he said that "pre-Bradley Wizardries (aren't RPGs because) don't allow meaningful change of the story--" blah blah.

That troll-blast was incredibly good! He knows it would push all my buttonsand he knows it would be difficult for me to argue effectively because... no existing Wizardry, be they pre-Bradley or post-Bradley, concerns itself (what the Codex deems as) "branching states".

A true masterful troll-shot that I fully respect, managing to trap me in a corner that I could only come out of by investing a fuck-ton of my will-power and energy into crafting many-paragraph long responses explaining everything from what the Wiz series is about to why its design is such and such and why Bradley design is not , etc, etc; and he did it by directing at me a mere 1 sentence rebuttal that, get ready for this:

He knows was/is untrue! But admitting that it wasn't true would necessitate too much text-walling therefore making it nigh unassailable!

Solution: Ignore List

 

[aweigh]

nah, I think he's fun to read and a quixotic internet personality. I would never want to ignore someone like Roguey who is an intelligent, worthy combatant in the Codex's troll-arena for survival.

I would only put a Codexer on Ignore List if they were unrepentant racist, bigoted, hateful, without any subtext to their agenda or any sort of contribution to the mighty philosophy with which the Codex revolves around; the supra naturally still water inside the well from which St. Proverbius first became enlightened upon drinking a sip; what the fuck is an RPG, or more specifically: what is the best way to design an RPG .

We gotta have subtext people!

 

[Cael]

We gotta have subtext people!

Must. Resist. Referring. To. Gaydar...

*fails miserably*

 

[Ventidius]

Well, to be fair, there was some Oblivion discussion, but then it became about Morrowind, collecting stuff in your virtual house, LARP, Skyrim mods, and ultimately, the nature of RPGs. Pretty typical Codex thread overall.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[aweigh]

Well, speaking of Oblivion:

it is fucking unplayable and I never finished it, unlike Morrowind which I have finished. I have nothing to add regarding Oblivion as it is painfully obvious to anyone that is a bad, bad game that breaks any sort of authorial contract in gasps, in whimpers, throughout a continous procession of horrors that visit the player in myriad forms.

It promises INTERACTION (!!!) in the fullest sense then breaks this promise by revealing the hollow foundation beneath which is incapable of nourishing any interactivity beyond the most asinine; it promises story telling (!!!) but breaks that promise by failing to present a coherent (or even completed) "story", failing to utilize or bring to the table any of the tools with which a story may allow itself to exist.

It promises--, etc, etc. You all get the point. Skyrim was a major improvement and a much more enjoyable experience, but the series died with Morrowind... at least in the context of the Codex's endless quest for RPG-ness, like the Decepticons' endless thirst for energon cubes. As a "video game", i.e. when played without concern for how much of an RPG it is, Skyrim is arguably Bethesda's most competently designed game specifically because they narrowed their focus; the end result resulted in something that is almost completely lacking in anything with which a Codexer would recognize as part of the RPG template, but fuck it, it was at least more "fun" than Oblivion.

I've never played Daggerfall but I'm planning on giving the recent engine-remake version (don't know full details) of Daggerfall which allows mods, etc. I probably won't finish it, but I'm gonna give it a shot.

The thing with Bethesda is that their games are simply too lacking in depth to have any thread about them be rendered interesting enough to plumb.

 

[Cael]

Having come from an Ultima background, I usually just laugh whenever some Johnny-come-lately claims they have interactivity. You want interactivity, play Ultima 7. That's interactivity.

Spoiler

A minor list:
1. Use bucket on well to get water; use water on flour to get dough; put dough in over to get bread (or use a rolling pin on it first to get bread with a different sprite).
2. Use wool on spindel to get thread; use thread on loom to get cloth; use scissors on cloth to get bandages.
3. Pile boxes and crates and barrels on each other to climb over obstructions (and other hilariously cheaty stuff).
4. Use pick in mines to get nuggets of gold, lead or iron.
5. Forge a sword (too many steps to interate here).

No other game comes close.

 

[aweigh]

This is a perfect time to ask this:

Cael

Does the stuff contained in your list of things the player can do in U7 fall under "simulationist", or under "gamification"? I think "gamification may actually refer to something else entirely (i.e. how in the Military a medal or a promotion is awarded in the same vein that in a game the player is awarded in the same vein that in an office/corporate environment an incentive is provided, etc).

For example I don't consider any of the stuff you exemplified regarding U7 as stuff that would enhance my enjoyment of an RPG, and in fact I would consider it tedious fluff that constitutes time/resources misspent; admittedly this is being typed without having played U7 myself, I've only played U4 (original, AND the genesis version), and U5 (original and remake) and U6 (only played the remake), so the above opinion on said "fluff" is a 100% ignorant one.

EDIT: obviously being able to use game world objects as (i assume) optional tools with which to navigate the game's conflict resolution systems (i.e. your bullet point concerning making box-ladders) is 100% what a good RPG should feature, perhaps not specifically but in design.

But stuff like making bread or opening your own shop, unless you're able to use these scenarios in order to navigate the game's entirety of conflict resolution systems, (i.e. form a shopping "empire" with which you can continue through the story in that capacity, etc), otherwise it's just stuff there that the player can do without being additive.

Of course now we're entering the topic of in-game LARPing and whether it, or rather why some think it belongs and some don't: for example the Hearthfire DLC for Oblivion I thnink it was, maybe it was Skyrim?? You know, shit that is just there but has no tangible contribution to the underlying game play mechanics.

(Concerning what I *think* is simulationist design elements): One of the moments I realized how important "simulationist" (I think that's what the following is...) aspects can be for an RPG was a moment where I was playing F:NV for probably the 12th time and I saw for the first time ever an NPC in the Mojave Outpost take out a Nuka Cola from out of their pocket (well, it materialized in his hands, but y'know) and chug it while lounging on the sidewalk.

I was floored because I'd never noticed that particular detail, and while I didn't go and kill him I'm certain the NPC, if killed, would leave the drink item as loot, or if already drunk, leave behind the cap. This small moment crystallized my fervent appreciation for the sheer love presented by F:NV and how complete its world building was, and this small moment I also consider:

- A subtle way to foment characterization in an RPG (re: video game) without the usage of any tool(s) borrowed from books or film; the game's living world doing all of the work.

Is what I described just now part of what constitutes "simulationist" element/design in an RPG? I wanna be educated on this.

Another example: in Arcanum there is a lot of busywork that appears similar to what you described regarding being able to get bark from a tree and then make chocolate out of it or whatever (being humorous, chill) but in Arcanum absolutely everything is tied directly or indirectly to the underlying game mechanics and it is "gamified" by way (easy example) of the game's recipes, thus making what would otherwise be (IMO) tedious busywork become an inherent part of the game play experience that is tied in all levels of the actual under-the-hood systems.

Yet Another Easy Example: if a game features a day/night cycle but nothing comes of it other than making the player have to tediously wait for shops to open, thus necessitating the need to build a completely superfluous "waiting mechanic" of some sort... that is 100% misspent resources!

Maybe they then make it so night-enemies are 1.2x deal more DMG... wow, who gives a shit. Still misspent resources. It is a perfect example of when actually not including the day/night cycle not only leave no impact on the experience, IMO it would BETTER the experience.

If their intent is to make it so that night-time exploration instills a psychological effect in the player, then that is something that is much better handled by good encounter design rather than by a global multiplier.

TL;DR: The stuff in your Ultima 7 list is stuff that is... interactive, sure, but seems superfluous. But I really should stop here since like I said, I haven't played U7.

In the Wiz-clone "Generation XTH", parts Abyss and Babel, instead of leaving behind loot enemies instead leave behind "junk parts/items" which are then combined with other corresponding parts that you then assemble into an item itself by way of the town-hub's "labortary" feature.

It's something that on paper seems worthwhile, seems like a way to "spice things up", but in practice it becomes obvious to the player that the "old method" of having enemies just simply leave behind a fucking thing instead of a part provides a sharper, more tangible psychological effect on the player by presenting a tried-and-true skinner-box layer that is simply nigh perfect for the purposes of incentivizing the player.

The Gen XTH decision to take that simple, standard methodology and simply break it down into thethered part-hunting... it adds nothing and instead simply makes the player less excited about receiving loot because they know they still need more parts and there is no guarantee they'll get them.

It is then obvious, to me at least, that it just way more effective to have less loot but have the loot there is be immediately gratifying to get, instead of stringing the player along.

Another example where they tried to spice things up but end up over-thinking a game mechanic and making it worse by virtue of making it "more".

 

[Ventidius]

Well, speaking of Oblivion:

it is fucking unplayable and I never finished it, unlike Morrowind which I have finished. I have nothing to add regarding Oblivion as it is painfully obvious to anyone that is a bad, bad game that breaks any sort of authorial contract in gasps, in whimpers, throughout a continous procession of horrors that visit the player in myriad forms.

It promises INTERACTION (!!!) in the fullest sense then breaks this promise by revealing the hollow foundation beneath which is incapable of nourishing any interactivity beyond the most asinine; it promises story telling (!!!) but breaks that promise by failing to present a coherent (or even completed) "story", failing to utilize or bring to the table any of the tools with which a story may allow itself to exist.

It promises--, etc, etc. You all get the point.

To me, the worst part of Oblivion was the absolutely broken character progression. Level-scaling I can live with, but Oblivion's implementation of it was simply dysfunctional and broke the character system completely. It is a game where you have to level efficiently to succeed. But wait, that sounds good right? Sounds hardcore, right? Except it is not, because due to the way the scaling works you can beat the game at level 1... Still, if you do level up it is good right? Forget it, due to the way the scaling works (again), the best way to level up is to make your major skills those skills that you are unlikely to use so that you can easily control the way you gain attributes on level up. This is downright borked design and very unintuitive. I remember an old Sawyer quote in which he says that Oblivion(along with Mass Effect) is his ideal system because it is easy to pick up and then becomes more complex as you go along (paraphrasing). This makes me wonder whether we actually played the same game. Whether Oblivion's character system is complex at all is debatable (I think it isn't but more on that below), but the one thing you can't say at all is that it is accessible. It doesn't even succeed at that. Unless you metagame and read an efficient levelling guide - or mod the game like Roguey did - the level scaling will eventually screw you and your only recourse will be lowering the difficulty due to the massive HP bloat of enemies.

As I said, I don't think the system is very complex either. It is a rather bland skill/attribute score system embedded on a class system. No complex and mutually interacting layers of statistical abstraction embedded on classes and races like in Wizardry and DnD, no perks/feats/skill system like Fallout, just a boring "pump it up" system with the added grievance of being learn by doing. Morrowind was the same, but at least it was intuitive/accessible and didn't suffer of the above problems. Roguey had no complaints about this in his analysis, but he modded the level scaling, so of course it didn't come up.

The exploration is also serious decline compared to both Daggerfall and Morrowind. Much of the freedom and options that Morrowind gave you were outright neutered, the world and its characters were ugly, especially grievous considering how long you spent "hiking" it, the lore and world-building was the nadir of TES and arguably RPGs. It didn't work as a pseudo-roguelike in the vein of DF either due to the fact that the dungeons were too simple. The dungeons themselves were a bad compromise between the elegance and simplicity of those in MW and Skyrim - which also synergized with the overworld exploration by not being too intrusive on it - and the procedural complexity of Daggerfall's. They felt drab, repetitive and pointless. At least DF's, which were also objectively badly designed, managed get the job done by disorienting you and challenging you while providing you with a medium through which to develop your character(which was the specific role they were meant to served in the structure of the game) in the context of a game in which progression was actually worthwhile.

While I actually think that well-done real-time combat - such as that in Dragon's Dogma - is a better fit for an Action RPG than the crappy dice-rolls system of Morrowind, the combat in Oblivion is simply too clunky by the standards of action games. Maybe it was okay by the standards of ARPGs of its day, but it was still objectively bad and is now obsolete in any case.

Skyrim was a major improvement and a much more enjoyable experience, but the series died with Morrowind... at least in the context of the Codex's endless quest for RPG-ness, like the Decepticons' endless thirst for energon cubes. As a "video game", i.e. when played without concern for how much of an RPG it is, Skyrim is arguably Bethesda's most competently designed game specifically because they narrowed their focus; the end result resulted in something that is almost completely lacking in anything with which a Codexer would recognize as part of the RPG template, but fuck it, it was at least more "fun" than Oblivion.

I've never played Daggerfall but I'm planning on giving the recent engine-remake version (don't know full details) of Daggerfall which allows mods, etc. I probably won't finish it, but I'm gonna give it a shot.

The thing with Bethesda is that their games are simply too lacking in depth to have any thread about them be rendered interesting enough to plumb.

Well, I am not sure I would say Skyrim is not an RPG. Wasted potential compared to Morrowind? Sure. But I mean, it does have exploration, character customization, and combat. Unless you think real-time combat is the problem? I am rather lenient about RT combat myself, and am willing to accept games like Dragon's Dogma and NieR Automata as RPGs. I think RT combat is fine so long as your character build still matters more, unlike in Dark Souls, where non-cheese SL 1 runs are perfectly possible if you are skilled enough. RT combat is usually deterministic rather than dice-roll/RNG based, but you can still manipulate variables such as damage output, hp, and many other things through the character system rather than to-hit-chance and what have you.

 

[Cael]

This is a perfect time to ask this:

Cael

Does the stuff contained in your list of things the player can do in U7 fall under "simulationist", or under "gamification"? I think "gamification may actually refer to something else entirely (i.e. how in the Military a medal or a promotion is awarded in the same vein that in a game the player is awarded in the same vein that in an office/corporate environment an incentive is provided, etc).

For example I don't consider any of the stuff you exemplified regarding U7 as stuff that would enhance my enjoyment of an RPG, and in fact I would consider it tedious fluff that constitutes time/resources misspent; admittedly this is being typed without having played U7 myself, I've only played U4 (original, AND the genesis version), and U5 (original and remake) and U6 (only played the remake), so the above opinion on said "fluff" is a 100% ignorant one.

All that said: one of the moments I realized how important "simulationist" (I think that's what the following is...) aspects can be for an RPG was a moment where I was playing F:NV for probably the 12th time and I saw for the first time ever an NPC in the Mojave Outpost take out a Nuka Cola from out of their pocket (well, it materialized in his hands, but y'know) and chug it while lounging on the sidewalk.

I was floored because I'd never noticed that particular detail, and while I didn't go and kill him I'm certain the NPC, if killed, would leave the drink item as loot, or if already drunk, leave behind the cap. This small moment crystallized my fervent appreciation for the sheer love presented by F:NV and how complete its world building was, and this small moment I also consider:

- A subtle way to foment characterization in an RPG (re: video game) without the usage of any tool(s) borrowed from books or film; the game's living world doing all of the work.

Is what I described just now part of what constitutes "simulationist" element/design in an RPG? I wanna be educated on this.

EDIT: obviously being able to use game world objects as (i assume) optional tools with which to navigate the game's conflict resolution systems (i.e. your bullet point concerning making box-ladders) is 100% what a good RPG should feature, not specifically but in design.

But stuff like making bread or opening your own shop, unless you're able to use these scenarios in order to navigate the game's entirety of conflict resolution systems, (i.e. form a shopping "empire" with which you can continue through the story in that capacity, etc), otherwise it's just stuff there that the player can do without being additive.

Of course now we're entering the topic of in-game LARPing and whether it, or rather why some think it belongs and some don't: for example the Hearthfire DLC for Oblivion I thnink it was, maybe it was Skyrim?? You know, shit that is just there but has no tangible contribution to the underlying game play mechanics.

Another example: in Arcanum there is a lot of busywork that appears similar to what you described regarding being able to get bark from a tree and then make chocolate out of it or whatever (being humorous, chill) but in Arcanum absolutely everything is tied directly or indirectly to the underlying game mechanics and it is "gamified" by way (easy example) of the game's recipes, thus making what would otherwise be (IMO) tedious busywork become an inherent part of the game play experience that is tied in all levels of the actual under-the-hood systems.

Yet Another Easy Example: if a game features a day/night cycle but nothing comes of it other than making the player have to tediously wait for shops to open, thus necessitating the need to build a completely superfluous "waiting mechanic" of some sort... that is 100% misspent resources!

Maybe they then make it so night-enemies are 1.2x deal more DMG... wow, who gives a shit. Still misspent resources. It is a perfect example of when actually not including the day/night cycle not only leave no impact on the experience, IMO it would BETTER the experience.

First thing you need to realise is that Ultima 7 came out in 1992. That is 25 years ago.

With that out of the way, none of the things mentioned is actually something you NEED to do to complete the game (with the sole exception of forging a sword for the Forge of Virtue addon, but that is the only time). It is, however, things that you can do if you so wish, and the NPCs most definitely do it. If you walk into a kitchen or a bakery, for example, you may NPCs furiously baking bread using the exact same steps that you would need to go through yourself. There is no shortcuts of NPCs magically producing bread out of nowhere (note that this does not apply to the store part of the game, which always have unlimited stock). A blacksmith can be going through the motions for forging a sword (including tempering it, quenching it, etc.).

You have sprites of NPCs swinging scythes in farms, sitting down in pubs, serving girls would put food on their plates and they will "eat" it (well, the food disappears), night-day cycles of activities, going to a Fellowship meeting (i.e., the Ultima 7 version of church), etc. The game is full of LIVING elements that not even modern day RPGs can match.

Oh, and it is open sandbox, more or less, although the world is far smaller than what you would come to expect today.

If you haven't played the game, I strongly recommend that you try it out to see for yourself. It is s popular that it has been fan ported to run on modern machines via the Exult shell. You just have to get over the somewhat dated graphics.

NOTE: All of it is exactly as you have said: No bearing on the main quest at all, and yes, you may have to wait for shops to open unless you track the shopkeeper down to his home and wake him up (his dialog doesn't change). There is also no economy, per se. You can buy stuff but you rarely can sell them, which makes certain things challenging, but there are also ways around it if you know the game well enough.

 

[aweigh]

Ventidius

that's prolly the best assessment of Oblivion I've read recently, though I don't usually bother reading Bethesda threads. It's a game that fails to deliver on every single thing it (inherently) promises.

As for Skyrim's RPG status: of course I consider it an RPG. It's a bad RPG, I suppose, but I definitely had way more fun playing it (never bothered finishing it, and evne though I had fun I wouldn't consider it an RPG worth playing); than I did playing Oblivion. I think I appreciated it mostly because it was such a massive improvement over Oblivion that the bar, which had fallen so low for Bethes-games, rose a couple of notches and thus I found myself appreciating more the fact that they put a nominal effort into the game's designs than actually appreciating the game itself.

Sidenote: I'm currently playing through NieR: Automata and I think it might be the absolute best fucking gaming experience I've had in years. I started thinking it was a competent action game throughout the prologue with a "generic story"; and then suddenly the game breaks the 4th, 5th, and 6th fucking walls of Meta when they decide to have the player go through an in-game tutorial scenario integrated into the games concept (itself something done countless times before, BUT) I was very impressed at the balls of this game of making the player go through what is, essentially, the entirety of the games systems in an extremely long prologue that takes the player through almost all of the games systems BEFORE having the tutorial/plot exposition scene...

...and then I finally said, this game is fucking amazing, when I realized later on that what I had thought was the game taking the player through the majority of its mechanics in the prologue was not even close to being true, and marvelling at the decision by the designers to slow-burn the game's story, themes AND the game's mechanics/systems by tightly weaving them together with ALL of the game's differing aspects expertly.

It had been a long, long while since I have played a game that put its artistry of design before an overriding concern to coddle the player (so that, in turn, avoid bad reviews, etc); and instead finding myself experiencing a constantly changing authorial contract which never broke or contradicted itself while constantly become more complex, the efforts of a true auteur at work.

Cael

What I'm trying to postulate is that I don't know how that degree of detail necessarily means something "good" for the player in the grand scheme of things. Leaving aside ultima 7's quality as a game, I mean this in a broad way. I ask again: is this what is considered to be "simulationist" game design?

There have been a few threads regarding the dichotomy between whether or not a game is a simulation or a game or whether a simulation of a game is a game, and I've found them interesting.

Is a game where the point is to simulate an activity a game? Obviously in U7's case it's not the "point", far from it, which is why I typed the above caveat of meaning this in a "broad way". When does the addition of simulationist elements add to the "RPG template", and when can it detract?

After all, the only reason the Nuka Cola Epiphany TM impacted me like that was because I was already heavily invested; but if the player is not invested (because the game failed to hook them), what will the player care whether nameless NPC is doing X/Y thing which does not add OR subtract?

What is the benefit of making a player do 3 tasks to accomplish 1 result instead of making the player do 1 task and get the same result? It is only if the 3 tasks all impact in some way the player's expectation of interactivity that it would then make sense to write such a tethered sequence, I believe.

Like I wrote above concerning the day/night cycle and how, if by taking it further they then make the enemies more dangerous at night in order to legitimize the feature:

- With the underlying intent being making night-time exploration effect a psychological response on the player (i.e. encounters will deal more dmg, etc) then would it not be simply better to tackle this throughline by simply featuring good encounter design to achieve the desired results?

 

[Ventidius]

Sidenote: I'm currently playing through NieR: Automata and I think it might be the absolute best fucking gaming experience I've had in years.

Heh, you are in for quite the ride, my friend.

Also, more evidence of the superiority of glorious Nippon.

 

[aweigh]

F:NV also blew me away when they asked me to use the OBJECT-DRAGGING "mechanic" (if you can call it that) with the optional side-quest where you'are asked to go into a Fiend's hideout and use the dragging button to face that danger and locate a soldier's corpse and then DRAG IT TO SAFETY because the soldier's family wanted a burial.

Mein gott!! So elegant, SO SIMPLE in design, and so masterful in its ability to encompass the entire spectrum of interactivity which this specific game was dealing with (not saying it is the actual entire spectrum of ALL interactivity).

I would go as far as to say it is probably the best designed quest in that entire game simply because they managed to take something that in previous incarnations was completely superfluous (dragging button) and tie it meaningfully into everything else the game offered. If a film has an "anatomy of a scene" then in a video game's parallel that small side-quest in F:NV serves as a good candidate for such.

 

[Cael]

Cael

What I'm trying to postulate is that I don't know how that degree of detail necessarily means something "good" for the player in the grand scheme of things. Leaving aside ultima 7's quality as a game, I mean this in a broad way. I ask again: is this what is considered to be "simulationist" game design?

There have been a few threads regarding the dichotomy between whether or not a game is a simulation or a game or whether a simulation of a game is a game, and I've found them interesting.

Is a game where the point is to simulate an activity a game? Obviously in U7's case it's not the "point", far from it, which is why I typed the above caveat of meaning this in a "broad way". When does the addition of simulationist elements add to the "RPG template", and when can it detract?

After all, the only reason the Nuka Cola Epiphany TM impacted me like that was because I was already heavily invested; but if the player is not invested (because the game failed to hook them), what will the player care whether nameless NPC is doing X/Y thing which does not add OR subtract?

What is the benefit of making a player do 3 tasks to accomplish 1 result instead of making the player do 1 task and get the same result? It is only if the 3 tasks all impact in some way the player's expectation of interactivity that it would then make sense to write such a tethered sequence, I believe.

Like I wrote above concerning the day/night cycle and how, if by taking it further they then make the enemies more dangerous at night in order to legitimize the feature:

- With the underlying intent being making night-time exploration effect a psychological response on the player (i.e. encounters will deal more dmg, etc) then would it not be simply better to tackle this throughline by simply featuring good encounter design to achieve the desired results?

It is not a question that a person can answer. Ask a hundred different persons and you will get a hundred different answers. It boils down to taste and personal preferrence. Some people like the nuances of a well crafted world where NPCs do things that have no benefit to the game itself. Others hate it. Therefore, where different people draw the line of simulationist and not would be different between the individual.

I have always found people who analyse games and get stuck on trivia to be a bit strange. If you like the game, you like the game. Who cares if it is simulationist, repetitive or whatever? So long as you enjoy it, go for it. Similarly, if you don't enjoy it, that's fine too. You have your reasons.

There is something that should be noted about your day-night cycle: It is a psychological response on the players side to dread what they can't see. You don't need a mechanical effect to back it up. A simple monster that is easy pickings during the day because you can see and kill it a mile off becomes a players worst nightmare in the dark when it can appear already within arm's reach with a gleeful grin on its face. The dread of not being able to see far during night time is something that is in and of itself worthy. Too bad few games do it well.

 

[SomeDudeandHisHamster]

Cael

What I'm trying to postulate is that I don't know how that degree of detail necessarily means something "good" for the player in the grand scheme of things. Leaving aside ultima 7's quality as a game, I mean this in a broad way. I ask again: is this what is considered to be "simulationist" game design?

There have been a few threads regarding the dichotomy between whether or not a game is a simulation or a game or whether a simulation of a game is a game, and I've found them interesting.

Is a game where the point is to simulate an activity a game? Obviously in U7's case it's not the "point", far from it, which is why I typed the above caveat of meaning this in a "broad way". When does the addition of simulationist elements add to the "RPG template", and when can it detract?

After all, the only reason the Nuka Cola Epiphany TM impacted me like that was because I was already heavily invested; but if the player is not invested (because the game failed to hook them), what will the player care whether nameless NPC is doing X/Y thing which does not add OR subtract?

What is the benefit of making a player do 3 tasks to accomplish 1 result instead of making the player do 1 task and get the same result? It is only if the 3 tasks all impact in some way the player's expectation of interactivity that it would then make sense to write such a tethered sequence, I believe.

Like I wrote above concerning the day/night cycle and how, if by taking it further they then make the enemies more dangerous at night in order to legitimize the feature:

- With the underlying intent being making night-time exploration effect a psychological response on the player (i.e. encounters will deal more dmg, etc) then would it not be simply better to tackle this throughline by simply featuring good encounter design to achieve the desired results?

It is not a question that a person can answer. Ask a hundred different persons and you will get a hundred different answers. It boils down to taste and personal preferrence. Some people like the nuances of a well crafted world where NPCs do things that have no benefit to the game itself. Others hate it. Therefore, where different people draw the line of simulationist and not would be different between the individual.

I have always found people who analyse games and get stuck on trivia to be a bit strange. If you like the game, you like the game. Who cares if it is simulationist, repetitive or whatever? So long as you enjoy it, go for it. Similarly, if you don't enjoy it, that's fine too. You have your reasons.

There is something that should be noted about your day-night cycle: It is a psychological response on the players side to dread what they can't see. You don't need a mechanical effect to back it up. A simple monster that is easy pickings during the day because you can see and kill it a mile off becomes a players worst nightmare in the dark when it can appear already within arm's reach with a gleeful grin on its face. The dread of not being able to see far during night time is something that is in and of itself worthy. Too bad few games do it well.

I'm still curious about the difference between a simulation and an RPG thou.
In games like Harvest Moon, Persona, and Stardew Valley ,if you are playing the life you choose and the character is defined by your actions with the world's characters and systems; does it make it an RPG, a sandbox, or a life sim?

 

[Cael]

I'm still curious about the difference between a simulation and an RPG thou.
In games like Harvest Moon, Persona, and Stardew Valley ,if you are playing the life you choose and the character is defined by your actions with the world's characters and systems; does it make it an RPG, a sandbox, or a life sim?

Technically, any game where you take up a role and a character would make it a RPG. Now, whether that RPG is also a sim game or an adventure game or something else is another story altogether.

 

[aweigh]

You should make sure to use more words and shit instead of just utilizing a blanket term when referring to a "role". I mean, it's practically begging for

MARIO BROS LETS ME ROLE PLAY JUMPING PLUMBER HERP DERP

or my personal fave:

IN DOOM U PLAY ROLE OF THE ROCK !!! IS RPG.

Seriously speaking though simply typing "any game where... role... character... RPG" once again is something that includes basically every single non-rpg game that most codexers would agree, that while featuring some aspects of the RPG template, (like, say, GTA 3/4/5 whatever the one where u have attributes and shit) are most definitely not RPGs.

 

[Cael]

You should make sure to use more words and shit instead of just utilizing a blanket term when referring to a "role". I mean, it's practically begging for

MARIO BROS LETS ME ROLE PLAY JUMPING PLUMBER HERP DERP

or my personal fave:

IN DOOM U PLAY ROLE OF THE ROCK !!! IS RPG.

Seriously speaking though simply typing "any game where... role... character... RPG" once again is something that includes basically every single non-rpg game that most codexers would agree, that while featuring some aspects of the RPG template, (like, say, GTA 3/4/5 whatever the one where u have attributes and shit) are most definitely not RPGs.

And they would be right, if you really drill down to it :D

Roleplay. You play a role. That role can be a sequioa cactus in a desert scenario. So, TECHNICALLY, playing Mario Bros is roleplay. So, Mario or Luigi?

Roleplay seems to have evolved relatively recently into meaning that you must be able to LARP the character before it is considered roleplay. Whether that is right or wrong really doesn't matter, it is what it is. However, the problem lies in that because it has moved from a concrete definition, it is hard to define it now. By moving the goal posts, we are now arguing where to plant the damned things.

Hence, why I said that you won't get a definite answer if you ask a hundred people. One man's RP is another man's sim is another man's action adventure.

 

[aweigh]

Cael

in liue of wall-texting I'll postulate the following:

- In (the context of) video games, specifically RPGs and more specifically RPGs of Western lineage: one of the oldest and most simple arguments that can be made as to why you are in actuality not playing the role of a DOOM MARINE is that the DOOM MARINE, or rather the game within which he exists is not designed with the purpose of presenting the player with multiple layers of abstracted classification and mechanically driven extrapolation in the form of deliberately discreet levels of the game's conflict resolution systems.

- In Doom there is nothing that allows the player to express a tangible change in how the DOOM MARINE interacts with the game many different elements or in how the game reacts to the DOOM MARINE; there are power-ups but they they exist--

you know what, I don't have the will-power to argue this. Up above in some earlier post someone (forgot who) talked about how an attribute system should allow character conceptualization with the lowest example being the STRENGTH or equivalent attribute changing how that character functions inside the game world: how much he can carry, whether he can bash thru obstacles, etc. It is one of the oldest and simplest examples of what I was talking about in my 1st bullet point, and it's something non-RPGs do not feature (or, being generous here, do not feature in a meaningful way).

EDIT: actually that example there about STR attrib. was from Pillars ii's backer beta release thread, lol. Why? Because apparently PoE II's has been super-dumbed-down and attributes are a bigger clusterfuck than in PoE 1 and all talents removed, etc, etc, huge fuckup all around, end result is modders wil fix it .

EDIT: obviously an RPG doesn't have to hew to such things, such as having to obligatorily feature some sort of STR-equivalency in its attributes system or whatever-the-fuck in order to allow role-playing. That example is useful because it handily demonstrates what an RPG can do and what non-RPGs do not do (because they're not RPGs, they're other types of games with different designs).

"role" in an RPG is something that's atavistically tied to what an RPG is, in my opinion...

 

[Cael]

Cael

in liue of wall-texting I'll postulate the following:

- In (the context of) video games, specifically RPGs and more specifically RPGs of Western lineage: one of the oldest and most simple arguments that can be made as to why you are in actuality not playing the role of a DOOM MARINE is that the DOOM MARINE, or rather the game within which he exists is not designed with the purpose of presenting the player with multiple layers of abstracted classification and mechanically driven extrapolation in the form of deliberately discreet levels of the game's conflict resolution systems.

- In Doom there is nothing that allows the player to express a tangible change in how the DOOM MARINE interacts with the game many different elements or in how the game reacts to the DOOM MARINE; there are power-ups but they they exist--

you know what, I don't have the will-power to argue this. Up above in some earlier post someone (forgot who) talked about how an attribute system should allow character conceptualization with the lowest example being the STRENGTH or equivalent attribute changing how that character functions inside the game world: how much he can carry, whether he can bash thru obstacles, etc. It is one of the oldest and simplest examples of what I was talking about in my 1st bullet point, and it's something non-RPGs do not feature (or, being generous here, do not feature in a meaningful way).

EDIT: actually that example there about STR attrib. was from Pillars ii's backer beta release thread, lol. Why? Because apparently PoE II's has been super-dumbed-down and attributes are a bigger clusterfuck than in PoE 1 and all talents removed, etc, etc, huge fuckup all around, end result is modders wil fix it .

EDIT: obviously an RPG doesn't have to hew to such things, such as having to obligatorily feature some sort of STR-equivalency in its attributes system or whatever-the-fuck in order to allow role-playing. That example is useful because it handily demonstrates what an RPG can do and what non-RPGs do not do (because they're not RPGs, they're other types of games with different designs).

"role" in an RPG is something that's atavistically tied to what an RPG is, in my opinion...

Many classic RPG do not much more than the Doom marine in terms of interactivity. How much does the main character interact with elements within the game and how the game interacts with him in, say, Ultima 4? How about the early titles of Final Fantasy? Then there is the Gold Box games.

All of these are basically a group of people wandering through the game gaining power-ups/levels, better armour and weapons, solving puzzles, but interaction with the environment and game? Minimal.