Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Game News Dragon Age semi-annual update

Jed

Cipher
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
Tech Bro Hell
Shoelip said:
So you "know" that Dragon Age will not have choice and consequence in it's plot? hat makes you so sure? And with an attitude like that what makes you think it'll have complex inventory management?
I don't think it will have any deep or complex qualities whatsoever. I would love for them to prove me wrong, but NWN and KotOR were each far less than I am willing to settle for in a game that calls itself an "RPG." Why do you believe they would create a game with choice and consequence, i.e. role-playing, when it's more work and development cost knowing that no matter how shallow it is, all the gullible saps will line up to fork over the cash for anything with a BioWare sticker on the box?
 

Binary

Liturgist
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
901
Location
Trinsic
Jed said:
I'd rather have actual choice and consequence in my RPG, but I know that I'm not going to get that from BioWare

You can read the future? That must be cool. Can you predict when we'll get rid of your useless and shallow comments? Thanks! :D
 

Shoelip

Arbiter
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,814
Jed said:
Shoelip said:
So you "know" that Dragon Age will not have choice and consequence in it's plot? hat makes you so sure? And with an attitude like that what makes you think it'll have complex inventory management?
I don't think it will have any deep or complex qualities whatsoever. I would love for them to prove me wrong, but NWN and KotOR were each far less than I am willing to settle for in a game that calls itself an "RPG." Why do you believe they would create a game with choice and consequence, i.e. role-playing, when it's more work and development cost knowing that no matter how shallow it is, all the gullible saps will line up to fork over the cash for anything with a BioWare sticker on the box?

I'm as unbiased as most people can be on the subject of Dragon Age. All I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter if Dragon Age has a complex inventory system if it doesn't have a good plot with choices and consequences.

And you still haven't told me why you are certain it won't have a good plot with choices and consequences, but for some reason think it might have a complex inventory system. From what I've seen of Bioware games inventory management has become progressively "dumber" with every one.
 

Jed

Cipher
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
Tech Bro Hell
Shoelip said:
I'm as unbiased as most people can be on the subject of Dragon Age. All I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter if Dragon Age has a complex inventory system if it doesn't have a good plot with choices and consequences. And you still haven't told me why you are certain it won't have a good plot with choices and consequences, but for some reason think it might have a complex inventory system. From what I've seen of Bioware games inventory management has become progressively "dumber" with every one.
I guess I've done a really poor job of making myself clear. I guess it's what I get for arguing with Sarvis. So, for the record:

1. I believe DA will be a mildly entertaining action adventure game with some meaningless stats and a few cosmetic choice/consequence scenarios. The plot will revolve around an angsty band of misfits who must, against all apparent odds, defeat an ancient evil threatening to return, all the while rescuing kittens from trees either to help the locals, or for extortion.

2. I do not believe there will be any real roleplaying elements. I do not believe there will be any real choice or consequence. I do not think there will be any limitations imposed on the PC in order to avoid any illusion of challenge, i.e. not party member may be left behind or die, no item must be unavailable to the PC, combat will be a sleepwalk, etc.

3. I believe these things based on a historical experience of playing BG2, NWN, and KotOR as each were released. Anyone who honestly believes that KotOR was somehow a deeper or better RPG than BG2 in either quality or quanity is either a liar, a fucktard, Volourn, or worse--Sarvis.

4. BG2 was a good game, but it's a bit of a stretch to call even BG2 a great roleplaying game. To the best of my experience, BioWare has never made a great roleplaying game.

5. To clarify the "inventory management" point: the comment was made in the context of BioWare having never provided real choice or consequence in the first place, and with KotOR (and likely DA) they have stripped out even minor choice and consequence, i.e., inventory and party. Sarvis thinks having access to a magical Adventurers Wal-Mart at all times is somehow TEH ROELPLAYING! I think limitations are more appropriate in a game that's supposed to be an RPG. If you can be everything, have everyone in your party, have every item, never make a mistake or have to deal with an adverse consequence, it's called munchkinism.

I hope I've clarified this to the point that I don't have to read anymore dipshits writing: OMG, YER PRECIOUS INVENTORY MANAGEMENT IS NOT MOER IMPORTANT THAN THE PLOT!! R00000000FLESAURUS REX!!! ;;;;;;;;;;; (EDIT- Not directed at SHoelip)


---

I'm done. Now, can anyone here give me a reason why they believe DA will have any choice, consequence, or role-playing?
 

Twinfalls

Erudite
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
3,903
@Galsiah - as persuasive as your reasoning is, I fundamentally disagree with your outlook.

Death is death. If death is not a real, ever-present possibility in battle, then it becomes meaningless. If it gets substituted often enough with unconsciousness such that it is not a serious risk, the player is robbed. I get the feeling you're veering too far into the type of 'what's in it for the player' mindset that distorts the fundamentals. For example, it was the 'what's in it for the player' reasoning that led to Oblivion's 'You can be leader of all factions' mistake. The problem is that this reasoning tends to paint negatives as having no value.

What was lost to the Oblivion player was that frisson of deciding which path to go down, and knowing something was lost in order to gain something else. What's lost to the player whose party member does not die when it should in all realistic circumstances?

Nothing can substitute the feeling of losing a member in a pitched battle, and returning bedraggled, victorious but not completely joyous. This is the kind of bittersweet, grey 'victory' that good RPG gaming should always provide. Flavour could be added, sure - burial scenes or whatnot. But death itself is an element of which players should not be robbed.

And it's not neccessarily a re-load that always occurs. A player who has scraped through an especially arduous battle with one party member dead, will often realise that this was a lucky outcome - that more likely than not, doing it again will have more than one player dying, or the battle simply lost outright. This is where once again, overall game design and balance are those crucial drivers.

I agree with your suggestion that battle outcomes can be expanded into interesting areas like long illnesses. However, a party member being unconscious and taking a long time to heal, is not the same as a party member dying - no matter what the other penalties are, and should not be a substitute where it is not realistic.

Death is not a gaming bogeyman. Design the game by all means to discourage re-loading, but never at the expense of death.

After all, real life has no meaning without death, eh? :)

(NB Kotor's non-death, for what it's worth, was the worst possible. Party member goes down, stays down, never gets shot/sliced/blown up again, and gets up when the battle is over. Their reasoning is also the worst possible - they must maintain party members for the cut-scenes. And this is what we will clearly be getting again in DA)
 

Jed

Cipher
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
Tech Bro Hell
@Twinfalls: I think it's another symptom of the loss of choice and the gutting of any depth, complexity, or difficulty. Now you can't even choose to "fail" on any level. You can only "win" the game on Dave Gaider's terms, or quit playing. CHOICE!
 

RAG

Educated
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
75
Location
Greece
Dgaider said:
I'm not sure that the idea of sending party members to perform their own quests does all that much for me. Even if the situation is explained and you get to send someone with intructions, we're talking about a set-up and resolution done entirely within dialogue with the payoff being the NPC returning and essentially saying "done!"


How about making the NPC quests interact with your own?

Let's just say that you instruct an NPC that you would leave behind, to assasinate someone and then later you learn that you need some information from the victim and you have to find a way to stop the assasination.
Or you could have an assasination mission and you could give instructions to the NPCs that you leave behind for specific missions to help in your quest. Like giving instructions to the hot chick of your party to distract some guards at the gate and when you get there you witness the whole thing and interact with the situation as you see fit.
 

MountainWest

Scholar
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
630
Location
Over there
About death. Even though it wasn't a rpg, I remember Resident evil used tokens as somewhat of a save-currency. If you didn't have one of those you could'nt save, and in RE1 they were very scarce. This actually gave some meaning to death and was one of the reasons i liked the game.

I'd like to ses the same system beeing used in nearly every game. I'm not saying there should be finite amount of tokens, especially not in a RPG, but perhaps you should be forced to buy them of a merchant combined with finding them in chests and so on. They don't have to be very expensive, but enough so you think twice before saving prior to every battle and every dialog - if you still do it you won't be able to buy that armour of invincibility you're looking forward to.

You could tie "the miracle of reloading" to perhaps an object. Insted of tokens you buy charges to this object. I know it's lame, but not as lame as traditional reloading.

About the basecamp. I really like the idea of players currently not in your party doing research; opening up otherwise unattainable quests; picking up gossip in taverns; finding out which merchant that pays the best price for a particular object. The list is endless.
 

kris

Arcane
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
8,891
Location
Lulea, Sweden
Jed said:
I'm done. Now, can anyone here give me a reason why they believe DA will have any choice, consequence, or role-playing?

No, in your case I find that quite impossible. That both Kotor and more clearly JE had that doesn't seem to change that into the realm of possiblity.
 

Sarvis

Erudite
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
5,050
Location
Buffalo, NY
Jed said:
By "discussing," you actually mean "judging that it *will* have role-playing,"

No, I haven't. In fact, as I've said twice before in this thread, I don't believe it is possible for a video game to have roleplaying.

I cannot account for JE, having not played it, but from all reports except for Volourn, there is less RP than KotOR.

Well, I can tell you that the quests and decisions you had in JE violated your presupposed notions of what Bioware normally puts out. One example is a quest where you can either close a damn to restore a lake that a town depended on, or leave it open and destroy the controls so they are forced to suffer (the idea being that the town will become stronger for it.) In either case there is no real material reward. It probably fails the "consequences" side because immediately after you move on to a different town, so it has no effect on the rest of your game.

Of course, there's no logical reason that it should... but that never stopped Codexers from bitching before.



re you being willfully ignorant just to be an ass, or are you really too stupid to understand the point I was making about limitations, choice, consequence, and how little there is/was to begin with in BioWare games? It's dumbfuckery either way, I suppose ...



Look, this is quite simple. If there is wonderful and complex choices & consequences in the storyline/plot, you probably won't care about inventory management because you'll be able to do what you call "roleplaying."

If there ISN'T those complex choices and consequences, inventory management isn't going to make up for it.

So basically, either way inventory management will have little impact on what you think of the game. Yet here you are spending three pages worth of thread arguing about how <i>necessary</i> it is? Now THAT'S dumbfuckery.

But hey, since you can't come up with any actual defense of it why not just make another reference to my title? That's always creative and effective!
 

Sarvis

Erudite
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
5,050
Location
Buffalo, NY
Jed said:
Sarvis thinks having access to a magical Adventurers Wal-Mart at all times is somehow TEH ROELPLAYING!

As I've said before, it is impossible to roleplay in a video game... so no, I don't think having access to a Wal-Mart is somehow "TEH ROELPLAYING!"

But apparently doing your laundry is. Beware the pink socks of consequences!
 

Jed

Cipher
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
Tech Bro Hell
If roleplaying in a cRPG is impossible, on what grounds are you defending the alleged roleplaying aspects of BioWare's games?

Also, since you don't believe in roleplaying in computer games, why do you have 2891 posts on the (computer) Role Playing Games Codex?

I don't believe in ghosts, and I sure as hell don't waste my time arguing in circles at the Oh-My-God-There's-A-Ghost-In-My-Kitchen Codex.

And why do you wear pink socks?
 

Perishiko

Scholar
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
135
The Rambling Sage said:
the scripted death and immature drama of Final Fantasy VII?

Perhaps you were the immature part of the drama. It sounds to me like you really hated the game. Give the grudge up man, that game's old as hell. :wink:
 

Sarvis

Erudite
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
5,050
Location
Buffalo, NY
Jed said:
If roleplaying in a cRPG is impossible, on what grounds are you defending the alleged roleplaying aspects of BioWare's games?

Also, since you don't believe in roleplaying in computer games, why do you have 2891 posts on the (computer) Role Playing Games Codex?

I don't believe in ghosts, and I sure as hell don't waste my time arguing in circles at the Oh-My-God-There's-A-Ghost-In-My-Kitchen Codex.

And why do you wear pink socks?

Are you slow? Seriously. I never said CRPGs don't exist, I said you can't <i>roleplay</i> in them.

By the same token, I wasn't defending the "roleplaying" aspects of BioWare's games, I was simply pointing out a scenario that went beyond what you claim BioWare is capable of producing. I don't consider having a choice to be roleplaying, I consider having freedom to do whatever dumbass thing you think of to be roleplaying. Video games will never be capable of allowing that amount of infinite choice.

Buit that's ok, because that's not what CRPGs are about anyway. There was no roleplaying in the Gold Box games, no roleplaying in Final Fantasy, no roleplaying in Baldur's Gate or Fallout or Avernum or Geneforge. They all have elements in common that make them RPGs, those elements just don't include roleplaying.

Oh, and I don't have pink socks. I "roleplay" my laundry on the good path.
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
Lol what a brilliant discovery. Of course you can't have the computer do what a human can do with a pnp party. Thats why the C in CRPG. But there are levels of quality computer role-playing we can use to evaluate crpgs by other crpgs that did it best. In a good crpg the computer takes the place of the human game master and tries to provide a solid world and a good variety of gameplay for the most interesting characters.
 

Monolith

Prophet
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
1,298
Location
München
MountainWest said:
About death. Even though it wasn't a rpg, I remember Resident evil used tokens as somewhat of a save-currency. If you didn't have one of those you could'nt save, and in RE1 they were very scarce. This actually gave some meaning to death and was one of the reasons i liked the game.

I'd like to ses the same system beeing used in nearly every game.
I like to save whenever I want and I like to save after every little achievement I made. I hate having to redo something only because I wasn't able to save a game after I did it once and got killed afterwards. Plus: having to get an in-game item to do something not game world related simply sucks. And it's consolish. Thus it sucks twice. Like all those nasty checkpoints. It can be nice in an action game (e. g. Chronicles of Riddick - Escape of Butchers Bay) but keep it far away fom RPG!

Btw:
Thanks Sarvis. I finally understand why you got that "DUMBFUCK !!!" tag.
 

Sarvis

Erudite
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
5,050
Location
Buffalo, NY
Monolith said:
Thanks Sarvis. I finally understand why you got that "DUMBFUCK !!!" tag.

Yeah, silly me... not being part of the hivemind.


So umm... considering no one here, except maybe Volourn, thinks the original NWN had any roleplaying why does the Codex cover it? If there's no roleplaying it's not an RPG according to you guys, so shouldn't it stop getting coverage?

Maybe, just maybe, you guys cover it because I'm right about what makes a game an RPG.
 

suibhne

Erudite
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
1,951
Location
Chicago
Re. death: in the context of a complex, adult game (not Resident Evil 4 or Metal Gear Solid, even tho I love 'em both :)), I think it's a really silly to either A) get rid of death, like KotOR; or B) turn reloading into a calculated meta-gaming process like RE (finding the typewriter ribbons, as mentioned above). I'm perfectly fine with the standard die/reload system, because it leaves abuse purely in the player's hands; I can choose to be a dumbass munchkin or a dedicated role-player. There are real consequences to failure, even if I'm able to circumvent them.

It also leaves meta-gaming outside of the game, which is important.

Look at it this way: there are no consequences anywhere, in any game, that can't be circumvented simply by reloading, or changing your character, or starting over, or whatnot. We're talking about computer games, for chrissakes; they're an abstraction of reality (or alternate reality) existing entirely in software which can even be turned off or deleted.

In this discussion about death, the proper question that Mr. Gaider and others should be asking isn't "Aren't players just going to reload?" Rather, the two important questions in my view are
1. "How do we make combat sophisticated and fun and tense, and let death be a consequence of poor decisions rather than bum luck?"
2. "What does it say about our gameworld if we get rid of death as a consequence, even if it can be circumvented by the player reloading?"

The gameworld should be consistent and logical. Anything the player does outside of the game is just that - outside of the game. And that includes reloading; making the gameworld stupid is not a solution. The die/reload system only needs to be changed if you think that players need to have less freedom, or that the integrity of the gameworld matters less than the convenience of the players - and I disagree with both of those suggestions.

Incidentally, by far my favorite implementation of death is in ToEE, faithfully implementing D&D's "death's door" rule. I can't count how many times my (point-buy, non-powergamed) characters fell below 0 HP, and that dramatically increased the tension of some battles for me (like the moathouse). Sure, I reloaded if characters actually died, but I only had to reload a few times in the entire game - whereas I had plenty of opportunity to bandage a dying character at -8 or -9 HP. That was awesome, and I've never played another game that offered that kind of experience.
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
There was a chapter in Daggerfall manual motivating players to "roleplaying their mistakes". I think this is the right solution for devs concerned too much with players loosing their progress. Dont blame the entire crpg genre because the crpg you designed doesn't allow for the player to gracefuly falllback and correct their mistakes while roleplaying.

Sarvis said:
So umm... considering no one here, except maybe Volourn, thinks the original NWN had any roleplaying why does the Codex cover it? If there's no roleplaying it's not an RPG according to you guys, so shouldn't it stop getting coverage?

I think any game that claims itself to be an rpg deserves some coverage, if not just to put it in its proper place.
 

Sarvis

Erudite
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
5,050
Location
Buffalo, NY
elander_ said:
I think any game that claims itself to be an rpg deserves some coverage, if not just to put it in its proper place.

How many years has the game been out now? The Codex has done a lot more than give it _some_ coverage. It STILL gets coverage, as recently as last month, despite no one here, except maybe Volourn, thinking it has TEH ROELPLAYING!

NWN still gets coverage because it IS a CRPG, and for no other reason.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Sarvis said:
So umm... considering no one here, except maybe Volourn, thinks the original NWN had any roleplaying why does the Codex cover it? If there's no roleplaying it's not an RPG according to you guys, so shouldn't it stop getting coverage?
We cover anything that claims to be an RPG. Even Mage Knight: Apocalypse.

Edit: Why? For amusement. For the same reason I posted the Mass Effect interview a few days ago. To give people something to talk about, something to take apart. To explain new members or lurkers what flaws we see in any given game that claims to be an RPG and in the ways the gaming media cover such games.
 

Jed

Cipher
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
Tech Bro Hell
Sarvis said:
Yeah, silly me... not being part of the hivemind.
You have nearly 3000 posts here. How do you count yourself outside of the "hivemind"? What is the "hivemind" to you anyway? Please define.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,986
Only members of the Hivemind wouldn't know theyw ere part of the Hivemind. Some Hivemind members actually have some brains to figure out that theya re part of it though. You obviously aren't one of thsoe.

LOL BG has the most role-playing in a BG game. What utter bullshit!!!
 

Sarvis

Erudite
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
5,050
Location
Buffalo, NY
Jed said:
Sarvis said:
Yeah, silly me... not being part of the hivemind.
You have nearly 3000 posts here.

Yes, because I'm constantly disagreeing with everyone else here. Is that so hard to figure out?


How do you count yourself outside of the "hivemind"? What is the "hivemind" to you anyway? Please define.

Well, bashing games before you've played them and being completely clueless as to the genre of just about any game are certainly big parts of it. Dragon Age as Action Adventure? Zelda is Action Adventure, Dragon Age is RPG. Even if it had Action based combat it would be an ActionRPG not Adventure because it won't have the puzzle/maze elements of Action Adventure games.
 

Jed

Cipher
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
Tech Bro Hell
Again, Sarvis or Volourn, please define the "Codex hivemind" so I can better understand your insane babble.
All about Volourn
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Total posts: 6905
[2.51% of total / 5.24 posts per day]
If the Codex is a hivemind, your posts comprise nearly 3% of the hivemind. How do you feel about that?
 

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