Baldurs Gate 2: Capstone to the Golden Era of crpg's?

[Gladi]

Well, a strong narrative is too vague. When we break it down into a linear narrative, that is extremely captivating and compelling, then it doesn't do what you've described beause you're not actually role-playing you're just reading/watching it.(This is why Final Fantasy gets so much flack! I believe Final Fantasy are RPG's though.)

But there are other options beside a branching storyline and a strictly linear one, are there not?

Even in storyline which offers you, what many codexers call "false choices", there can be opportunities for roleplay.

I would say that Planescape: Torment is a game with both strong narrative and with opportunity to role-play.

Though maybe I misunderstand the term "narative", as I do not have literary education, whereas you seem to do.

 

[Xi]

But there are other options beside a branching storyline and a strictly linear one, are there not?.

Definitely, and I believe it's the execution that the Pro-linear Narrative people are arguing over. I'm all for figuring out a way to encompass the Role-play choice within the narrative but to the same powerful effect of a linear narrative.

Hollow choices without consequence or in-game usefulness might as well just be left to the imagination. The medium is all about interactivity, and that's why choices should be meaningful. Otherwise you're just interacting with some pointless text and not the actual flow of the game.


Edit: Shit I have derailed this thread! Haha, BG2 was a great RPG despite its lack of branching story.(It had some meaningful choice, even if the choices were mostly shallow in terms of the finality of the story.) The powerful linear story definitely has merit, but shall we stop dreaming and pretend that we cannot achieve more?

 

[afewhours]

Though maybe I misunderstand the term "narative", as I do not have literary education, whereas you seem to do.

Without wanting to get in too deep: narrative refers to how a story progresses from A to B to C to D etc. It's a slightly fancier word for 'storyline'.

I have a 'literary' education, but I swear it only made me thicker!

 

[Ratty]

Ratty you dumb, dumb shit. You keep missing the point. Either you really are that stupid or you are just trolling.

Fact is, you need prior knowledge of the game either through a walkthrough, or having played it before in order to have amodicum of success as a diplomat.

Look, retard, I've already agreed that playing as a pure diplomat is more difficult than playing as a combat-oriented or semi-combat-oriented character. The point of contention is Naked Ninja's adamant insistence on the fact that it is more or less impossible to resolve *any* situation by diplomatic means without metagaming, which to me is evidence that he is either grossly exaggerating or grossly incompetent.

On the other hand, if you too subscribe to that moronic view, allow me to point out that my first characters in *both* Fallout games were diplomat/fighters with tagged Speech and Good Natured trait (I *always* play characters with some degree of diplomatic ability in CRPGs, assuming that said CRPG allows it) and I had no problems whatsoever avoiding nastier battles (I didn't avoid *all* combat, nor was I trying to, but I avoided a great deal of it, and I could have avoided far more if I wasn't looking to get as much experience as possible). If you want a more detailed account of my first playthrough, I'd be happy to oblige. I hope you don't, though, because dealing with your mind-numbing stupidity is becoming tiresome.

I'm overwhelmed at the number of diplomatic options. You win good sir.

Seriously though, did you think I didn't realise that you can side with Group A and kill Group B or vice-versa?

You were blathering about false choices leading to same conclusion, so I assumed that you indeed had no clue about how the quest was constructed, except now you are attempting to weasel out of that position and make it seem like your gripe was the absence of diplomatic options (and to be fair, there *are* opportunities to use your diplomatic skill, it's just that there isn't an all-diplomatic path through the quest). Three words: straw man argument. I seem to recall you had the Weasel tag at some point. I'm perplexed as to why it was removed, as you are more than living up to it right now.

I'll say it again: the Adytum quest is a well-constructed sidequest, intended for characters with solid combat skills. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that, unless you're one of those chuckleheads who think every character should be able to perform every quest in the game.

Wait, what? You know that was my justification to elander for NOT taking luck 1 right? He was asking why I didn't choose a luck of 1. Gun exploding in face and killing me sounds like enough motivation eh? How is that uninformed garbage?

It doesn't sound like it from the way phrased it: "I was expecting that Fallout didn't have the silliness of D&D, where a fighter takes a 3 in char and int because, hey, he's a fighter right? Those stats are dump stats." You make it sound like your expectations weren't met.

Or : I mostly encountered combat situations because thats the way Fallout was designed? Mostly around combat? Just a thought.

No.

Fallout's narrative and story is so weak EXACTLY because the characters aren't tied strongly to the plot. That is one of the foundations of good storytelling. You weave storylines around characters, not the other way around. Check out any guide to writing good stories for elaboration.

Your view of storytelling is laughably narrow and uneducated. According to you, The Little Prince, one of the most celebrated novellas of all time, is a "weak" story.

 

[afewhours]

Ideas are everything and execution of those ideas are what is lacking. Failing to properly execute an idea doesn't make an idea bad, it makes the execution bad.(Unless a flawless execution of an idea is just bad, but how would we know until we try?)

But if an idea cannot be well executed, then what worth does it have outside the realm of abstract thought? Heh heh! Sorry, chief - that was needlessly contrarian wasn't it? I can't speak for Naked Ninja, but I have sneaky suspicion his main beef may be mine. (again, NN, smack me if I'm speaking rubbish) I'm a peddler of trash; a struggling renaissance man; a failed writer. Over the years I've endured words and words of debate from people arguing about what makes a great novel tick, but hardly anyone actually engaging with the business of writing: crafting a story; crafting lucid prose etc. My love of fiction lies in the bones, and the artifice, which I why I stress execution in all things! :wink:

Anyhoo, I'll step out now. It would be hypocritical of me to babble about the greatness of execution and then rain on your idea discussion parade, when I have little business doing so. Carry on, gents! I've got to go work on Chapter 32!

 

[Naked Ninja]

The point of contention is Naked Ninja's adamant insistence on the fact that it is more or less impossible to resolve *any* situation by diplomatic means without metagaming

I like the way you inserted *any* in there to make me seem foolish. I said all, not any. Of course you can resolve individual situations through diplomacy, you can do that in KOTOR.

which to me is evidence that he is either grossly exaggerating or grossly incompetent.

No, you are reworking my statements to make it seem that way. It's pretty amusing.

You were blathering about false choices leading to same conclusion

No I said they both led to the same outcome of violence.

You make it sound like your expectations weren't met.

No, I was highlighting why didn't think playing a luck 1 char first time round was counterintuitive. Via sarcasm.

Your view of storytelling is laughably narrow and uneducated

Actually, thats one of the first things they teach you about writing stories.

 

[Brother None]

Actually, thats one of the first things they teach you about writing stories.

To be honest, "they" must suck quite a bit, because their mould of "good storytelling" doesn't really include a number of the greatest works of all time...

...Still, those kind of arbitrary restrictions on storytelling because you have to follow some set of "rules" is probably what caused the drudgery of BioWare's games. Perhaps they also follow those "rules", really well.

Also, it looks to me like your post is an attempt to dodge out of the argument. It's not a problem to admit you're wrong when you are, y'know. Just try it.

 

[jiujitsu]

I'd say the best era started with Fallout and ended with the death of Troika.

I'd have to agree with that.

 

[Xi]

But if an idea cannot be well executed, then what worth does it have outside the realm of abstract thought? Heh heh! Sorry, chief - that was needlessly contrarian wasn't it?

Actually, I understand where both of you are coming from. It makes sense. You're both more interested in the execution of a good story than some crazy idea about branching a story, to achieve role-play choice, at the expense of the stories' effect. Sense you're a person of mechanics and crafting, you'd probably appreciate that we are both fighting for the same idea within different contexts. I'm for better role-playing while you are for a better story and NN is for a better game.(There is an important difference between the three I believe!) You'd both rather leave the role-play up to other features of the game, instead of the story.

Well, hopefully that's true, otherwise we've gotten no where. Ahh well..

 

[Andhaira]

Troika had there heart in the right places, but their games were bugggy, buggy, buggy pieces of rushed and unfinished/unpolished code.

 

[afewhours]

Actually, I understand where both of you are coming from. It makes sense. You're both more interested in the execution of a good story than some crazy idea about branching a story, to achieve role-play choice, at the expense of the stories' effect. Sense you're a person of mechanics and crafting, you'd probably appreciate that we are both fighting for the same idea within different contexts. I'm for better role-playing while you are for a better story and NN is for a better game.(There is an important difference between the three I believe!) You'd both rather leave the role-play up to other features of the game, instead of the story.

Ah, I would not say anything so specific, chief. I think the best way to put it is... I believe your ideas are more useful as a pointer for the future, rather than to judge what has already been achieved? But yeah, I think we're in the same ballpark, or within the same sport, or... something.

Sorry, this vague, placating nonsense is kinda wrong for the Codex, isn't it? Ur ALL W0NG, U FUCK1NG CUNTZ! STFU! I think that's more appropriate. :D

 

[Naked Ninja]

Hmmm, I've never read the Little Prince. But wiki says :

In it, Saint-Exupéry tells of his being stranded in the Sahara Desert, thousands of kilometers away from inhabited places, where he meets a young extra-terrestrial (though entirely human-appearing) prince. In their conversations, the author reveals his own views about the follies of mankind and the simple truths that people seem to forget as they grow older.

I'm curious how that isn't focused on character interaction. You know talking is interaction right? Two characters having dialog is about as close to a pure example of MY point as you can get. Great character interaction = great storyline.

I need another example please, Brother None, you said you had some....

 

[afewhours]

...Still, those kind of arbitrary restrictions on storytelling because you have to follow some set of "rules" is probably what caused the drudgery of BioWare's games. Perhaps they also follow those "rules", really well.

Ah. What was it Robert Mckee wrote?

"Anxious, inexperienced writers obey rules. Rebellious, unschooled writers break rules. Artists master the form."

 

[Brother None]

I'm curious how that isn't focused on character interaction. You know talking is interaction right? Two characters having dialog is about as close to a pure example of MY point as you can get. Great character interaction = great storyline.

I need another example please, Brother None, you said you had some....

Dialog? Who said they have dialogue? It's a monologue of the Little Prince. more than it's a dialogue, so I'm sorry, your point is no point. You can't really argue against the point if you've never read the book, though, that's just weird.

Now, your argument is "You weave storylines around characters, not the other way around", right?

And of course I have some examples of the opposite, because an expert on writing like yourself should be well aware that all allegorical tales are always based on the functionality of characters within the framework of the allegory you're trying to build, thus they are the very definition of weaving characters into the specific story you wish to tell, not the other way around. They're functions of the story, nothing else. Gulliver's Travels is the most notable example of this, because none of the characters have much of a distinct personality (most of them aren't even named), rather they all serve as an expression on different reflections of humanity that the author is trying to convey. Gulliver himself is a bland, uninteresting character exactly because in that way he won't get in the way of the story.

And since you're so fond of wikipedia, it notes on this that it is one of Swift's "best known work, and a classic of English literature". Maybe you should write to noted English institutions and tell them they should ignore this book because obviously it doesn't follow the proper rules.

Other allegorical tales, right down to Coelho's Alchemist, all follow the basic same storytelling technique of weaving characters around storylines. I could probably think of some non-allegorical tales that do the same, but do I really have to?

Ah. What was it Robert Mckee wrote?

*post arbitrary snobby quote in reply*
Lulz. Just kiddin'. I love snobbery.

 

[afewhours]

And since you're so fond of wikipedia, it notes on this that it is one of Swift's "best known work, and a classic of English literature". Maybe you should write to noted English institutions and tell them they should ignore this book because obviously it doesn't follow the proper rules.

If he did that, they'd fucking love it. English lit. these days is all about "discourse" and "heteroglossia" and various other iconoclastic postmodernist tropes. If he were to attack part of the established canon - *especially* a blast of didactic hot air like "Gulliver's Travels" - they'd be beside themselves with joy.

You'd just have to abuse the terminology I mentioned to an unreadable degree, and I'd guarantee you an honourary doctorate.

 

[Brother None]

If he did that, they'd fucking love it. English lit. these days is all about "discourse" and "heteroglossia" and various other iconoclastic postmodernist tropes. If he were to attack part of the established canon - *especially* a blast of didactic hot air like "Gulliver's Travels" - they'd be beside themselves with joy.

You'd just have to abuse the terminology I mentioned to an unreadable degree, and I'd guarantee you an honourary doctorate.

Well, that's how most non-exact sciences work these days. I could write a 4000-word thesis on inter-culture patterns in Native American footwear and as long as I say social discourse, idiom and "civilization" a lot and occasionally quote Elias or Tilly or, better yet, Malinowski and Durkheim, I'm guaranteed a PhD in Social Anthropology. With honours!

PS: heteroglossia is a dumb word, you should just use разноречие.

 

[Ausir]

I also know some great science fiction works that are woven first and foremost around possible *worlds*, not characters.

 

[Ratty]

I like the way you inserted *any* in there to make me seem foolish. I said all, not any. Of course you can resolve individual situations through diplomacy, you can do that in KOTOR.

It is not unreasonable at all to expect there to be plenty of diplomatic options for that character. I didn't encounter any though, just fighting.

Nice try, weasel.

Amusingly, you can resolve vast majority of quests by non-violent means, including the entire main quest. Just like in KotOR, right?

No, you are reworking my statements to make it seem that way. It's pretty amusing.

no, ur

No I said they both led to the same outcome of violence.

One violent outcome is same as other, no difference at all, durrr!

Hmmm, I've never read the Little Prince.

I'm beginning to wonder if you "read" anything outside RPGs. R.A. Salvatore doesn't count.

I'm curious how that isn't focused on character interaction. You know talking is interaction right? Two characters having dialog is about as close to a pure example of MY point as you can get.

I thought the problem with Fallout was that "the characters [weren't] tied strongly to the plot" (whathever the hell that's supposed to mean)? Character interaction can't be an issue (even if it was some kind of a prerequisite for a great story, which it isn't), because Fallout had plenty of it, and it was generally very well written. In fact, I maintain that conversations with the Master and his Lieutenant are among the most memorable in the history of gaming.

Well, I guess that's another straw man! You're on fire, weasel!

Great character interaction = great storyline

Fail.

 

[afewhours]

I also know some great science fiction works that are woven first and foremost around possible *worlds*, not characters.

I think it's all down to whatever genre you're pitching. If you're writing a classical drama with an archetypal narrative, then strong, believable character interaction is a *must*. If you're aiming for an allegory, then narrative takes a subservient role to whatever moral or political point you're trying to push.

So certain works of prose can achieve great things while having just a simple, obligatory narrative. It all depends on the form.

 

[Lesifoere]

The discussion veered into pretentious literary/faux-literary arguments. And I missed it.

QQ.

Btw, I'm a lit student. Have never read The Little Prince. For what it's worth, however, imposing "it must do so, and so, and so in order to be a great story" expectations and limitations is at best foolish, at worst reductive.

 

[afewhours]

Btw, I'm a lit student.

You poor thing. Eng Lit. almost killed my zeal for writing. It took me about four years to get it back.

 

[Lesifoere]

Really? It's not long until I graduate, but I can't say I've ever lost my will to write. If anything, I've actually learned a thing here and there I wouldn't otherwise have learned from the kind of genre-locked reading I tended to stick to in the past.

 

[afewhours]

Really? It's not long until I graduate, but I can't say I've ever lost my will to write. If anything, I've actually learned a thing here and there I wouldn't otherwise have learned from the kind of genre-locked reading I tended to stick to in the past.

Perhaps I was little too negative. I certainly learnt a lot, but the tutor that gave me the most support left after my first year at university. I've always been an advocate for erm... "The Art of Fiction" over literary theory, if that makes any kind of sense. A lot of the pomo theorists and writers astonished me with the amount of rubbish they could talk. I also felt a lot of my peers were more concerned with writing trite verisimilitude instead of troubling themselves with honest craft and, well, drama. I ended up feeling very isolated by the last year.

I'm still glad I did my degree. It armed me for... something. It's difficult to describe, but it left me with a mindset that was clearer and sharper than before. My writing certainly improved, though I'm still toiling to make it better.

 

[Jasede]

What do you work as now with your degree?

 

[afewhours]

What do you work as now with your degree?

Hahaha! A failed renaissance man, of course! I worked in hospitality both before and after my degree, so that kept me paying my rent during the wilderness years. I got my alcohol licence and worked as night manager in a hotel for two and a half years. The hours meant I could organise my free time very well and pursue my personal interests. (four 12 hour shifts, four days off) It was a *very* interesting job. I saw a great deal, met people from all over the world, and I went from being a placid little fucker to working the doors when security didn't show up. It all made for good inspiration.

Sadly, I had to leave, due to some profoundly idiotic decisions from management. I felt their new ideas were unworkable so I handed in my resignation. I still don't know what I'm going to do yet. Ideally, I want a job that will help me tighten my prose. If I can't find anything in the short term, I'll finish my correspondence course in proofreading and see where that leaves me.

I've been working on my novel in my spare time. I'm making steady progress, though I've still got about a year until it will be complete. I've written about 56,000 words of it. I'll probably write the rest of the narrative in the next six months and spend another six months copy-editing.

So, yeah, failed renaissance man. Still, I live in domestic bliss, so life is good!