-
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.
RPG With the Most...
- Thread starter LazyD
- Start date
entertainer
Arbiter
Fallout duh
DriacKin
Arbiter
The most popular answer will be Arcanum.
Droog White Smile
Educated
C&C is some really silly term coined by VD that is supposedly an indicator of "RPGiness" of a game. And yet it doesn't mean shit. You can have a quest with 10 solutions which are all super dull boring shit, and on the other hand you can have have a quest with only a few (or even just one) solution(s) that can be really impressive or memorable (e.g. the half-ogre conspiracy quest which is completely linear).
Ergo, clever quest design > C&C.
Ergo, clever quest design > C&C.
racofer
Thread Incliner
Halo Wars.
MetalCraze
Arcane
The Witcher - you can even select whether fighters helping you in the fight in the exactly same place will wear red or green armour.
Phelot
Arcane
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 17,908
OK, I'm gonna come out and just say that I don't care about C&C. In fact, I hate it more then anything when it's hyped as a major feature in a game. As an example, The Witcher's C&C was so obvious. They even have movies afterwards that basically say "You have just made a choice, enjoy your consequence."
To me, C&C should be more about allowing the player to experience and perhaps even influence the world around them as they see fit and without all manner of red tape and warnings around "big epic choices." An example would be Fallout 2. I know it's goofy and I know it's considered inferior to the first and blah blah, but the game left you the fuck alone when it came to what choices you make. The game recognized that some characters would go nuts and waste a whole crime family in New Reno. Regardless if it's unrealistic to kill an entire town, the game let you do it and generally speaking, recognized it at the end. At the end, and that's important. I didn't need any NPC telling me "careful Chosen One, the choices you make will have long lasting consequences." right before doing something. It just wasn't necessary.
I suppose this style wouldn't work in a lot of games, true, but I don't think it's true that C&C increases replayability. At least not for me. The reason? Most, at least newer games that tout c&c have shit loads of not so fun combat and the idea that anyone would want to sludge through all that shit again just to pick the second option at a major choice junction is nuts... IMHO of course.
To me, C&C should be more about allowing the player to experience and perhaps even influence the world around them as they see fit and without all manner of red tape and warnings around "big epic choices." An example would be Fallout 2. I know it's goofy and I know it's considered inferior to the first and blah blah, but the game left you the fuck alone when it came to what choices you make. The game recognized that some characters would go nuts and waste a whole crime family in New Reno. Regardless if it's unrealistic to kill an entire town, the game let you do it and generally speaking, recognized it at the end. At the end, and that's important. I didn't need any NPC telling me "careful Chosen One, the choices you make will have long lasting consequences." right before doing something. It just wasn't necessary.
I suppose this style wouldn't work in a lot of games, true, but I don't think it's true that C&C increases replayability. At least not for me. The reason? Most, at least newer games that tout c&c have shit loads of not so fun combat and the idea that anyone would want to sludge through all that shit again just to pick the second option at a major choice junction is nuts... IMHO of course.
Emotional Vampire
Arbiter
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,927
Fallout, or Fallout 2
Bloodlines, maybe
Bloodlines, maybe
Admiral jimbob
gay as all hell
Probably Way of the Samurai, from what I've heard of it at least. Can't say many RPGs - except Arcanum to a point - in my experience have any notable examples of CHOICAN N CONSEQUENCIN at all. Ending slides do not count as consequences, go away Fallout
Droog White Smile
Educated
I'm replaying Bloodlines at the moment and I don't see many choices. It's all basically "go there, do that". Also, lots of fake dialog options, e.g. you can choose an angry or kind response, but they usually lead to the same line. FFS.Emotional Vampire said:
MOTB gives you choices and lo and behold even delivers consequences.
Serious_Business
Best Poster on the Codex
Geneforge.
Fuck off
Fuck off
C&C is a banned word, off you go to retardo do not pass go.
Kaanyrvhok
Arbiter
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,096
Droog White Smile said:
Thats not C&C thats just a lot of choices.
DraQ
Arcane
Any game - sometimes different shit may show on the screen as a result of your choice. Sometimes not. Who cares?MetalCraze said:
Longshanks
Augur
Not silly. Not coined by VD. Does mean shit when properly used. Can make for a much more well-rounded RPG, giving stats a purpose outside of combat.Droog White Smile said:
Agreed. Most modern games get it wrong, as they do most things, by overhyping it, both in and outside of the game. It should just be a natural part of the game world. And, given that we're discussing RPGs, it should be used more heavily in relation to the character - ie. the choices available changing based on stats (where stats are anything about the character, including background, race etc, as well as the numbers), and the outcome of certain choices being dependent on stats - just having the choices, really means little to an RPG, they need to tie in with the character sheet. It's about reactivity to your character, not just about giving the player choices - again something modern games do poorly, making everything more and more about the player (ME2 is a prime example, as is a game another poster brought up, though not a new game - Deus Ex).phelot said:
In this way c&c can be an important part of an RPG, helping to differentiate character builds; increasing the importance of the character sheet; making replays more viable; strengthening the player's role (which in a heavily character, stat-based RPG is mostly decision making); and making for a more believable game world, with your character actually seeming a part of it, not just a combat drone.
RPGs are, more than anything, about the character. Proper use of c&c strengthens and broadens the character, and more deeply roots it in the game world, whilst also strengthening the role of the player. For someone who's into RPGs, there's really nothing not to like, except the overuse and often misuse of the term.
Crowseye
Novice
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2
I think generally when people speak of C&C they are meaning more than just the player's choice for class and stat distribution affecting NPC reactions and quest availability.
You know that bully you decided to rough up outside the tavern? That turned out to be the son of the captain of the guard, and he's none to happy about it. Now you can't join the city guard faction. You also might have to worry about the good ole captain getting some payback. It also means the city guard won't send troops if you try to arrest the Baron later. Of course, if you let said son bully you, the weakness you show makes his friends try to bully you further throughout the game. Feeling bad for you, Robby the Rogue offers to take care of the problem. Now you can get the satisfaction of revenge and let Robby take the blame, resulting in getting the guards' help later, but you will have to kill Robby's cheating wife who is the only person in town that knows the spell to open the temple treasury where the evidence to convict the Baron resides. Of course, very few games go to a depth even as shallow as this little scenario.
More often you get a scenario where selecting the right dialogue choices means the lady gives you a ring that you can use two chapters later to have sex with her. Or killing the slave-owning plantation owner results in slaves running the plantation and giving you the Cloak of the Abolitionist +5. Or killing your sister gives you horns and lets you wield the Sword of Aeons. Some people consider that C&C, no matter how superficial, and others consider it a crappy way to market an "RPG."
As to the OP's original question,
Fallout is the only game I've finished that is worth replaying solely to see how different choices affect things later. KotOR 2 aspired to significant C&C. In some respects it works and does make the gameplay occasionally interesting (which NPCs were in your party, their related quests, how they reacted to you and whether and how you chose to train them as Jedi, which special Force forms or abilities you could learn from them, etc.), but it ultimately fell short in terms of these choices having any meaningful effects on the greater game world and story outcome. In didn't help that most of the NPCs were not well-developed or that there were still too many "hug a puppy/kill a kitten" choices. PS:T's C&C unsurprisingly bears a number of similarities to KotOR 2's, albeit with better-written characters, but most of the consequences of your major choices are not realized until you get to the final dude.
Deus Ex is a great game, probably my favorite, but claims to C&C in it are greatly exaggerated IMO. Yes, there are different ways you can achieve your mission objectives, and your insight into the story is affected by things like your decision to explore and hack into email, but subsequent "missions" are rarely affected in any significant way. Ultimately you are still railroaded into the next mission with the same mission objectives no matter what path you choose. The final choice is fun, but the game does not force you to make it consistent with your previous actions.
You know that bully you decided to rough up outside the tavern? That turned out to be the son of the captain of the guard, and he's none to happy about it. Now you can't join the city guard faction. You also might have to worry about the good ole captain getting some payback. It also means the city guard won't send troops if you try to arrest the Baron later. Of course, if you let said son bully you, the weakness you show makes his friends try to bully you further throughout the game. Feeling bad for you, Robby the Rogue offers to take care of the problem. Now you can get the satisfaction of revenge and let Robby take the blame, resulting in getting the guards' help later, but you will have to kill Robby's cheating wife who is the only person in town that knows the spell to open the temple treasury where the evidence to convict the Baron resides. Of course, very few games go to a depth even as shallow as this little scenario.
More often you get a scenario where selecting the right dialogue choices means the lady gives you a ring that you can use two chapters later to have sex with her. Or killing the slave-owning plantation owner results in slaves running the plantation and giving you the Cloak of the Abolitionist +5. Or killing your sister gives you horns and lets you wield the Sword of Aeons. Some people consider that C&C, no matter how superficial, and others consider it a crappy way to market an "RPG."
As to the OP's original question,
Fallout is the only game I've finished that is worth replaying solely to see how different choices affect things later. KotOR 2 aspired to significant C&C. In some respects it works and does make the gameplay occasionally interesting (which NPCs were in your party, their related quests, how they reacted to you and whether and how you chose to train them as Jedi, which special Force forms or abilities you could learn from them, etc.), but it ultimately fell short in terms of these choices having any meaningful effects on the greater game world and story outcome. In didn't help that most of the NPCs were not well-developed or that there were still too many "hug a puppy/kill a kitten" choices. PS:T's C&C unsurprisingly bears a number of similarities to KotOR 2's, albeit with better-written characters, but most of the consequences of your major choices are not realized until you get to the final dude.
Deus Ex is a great game, probably my favorite, but claims to C&C in it are greatly exaggerated IMO. Yes, there are different ways you can achieve your mission objectives, and your insight into the story is affected by things like your decision to explore and hack into email, but subsequent "missions" are rarely affected in any significant way. Ultimately you are still railroaded into the next mission with the same mission objectives no matter what path you choose. The final choice is fun, but the game does not force you to make it consistent with your previous actions.
Chaotic Lulz3r
Liturgist
DraQ said:
Azrael the cat
Arcane
Geneforge series beats all other games hands down in this aspect, including Arcanum. Perhaps good evidence that C+C doesn't guarantee great crpg for all, though I'm still a casual fan of the series. The earlier Geneforges don't focus on C+C quite so much, and so might be beaten in this regard by Arcanum (though I wouldn't vouch for it - G2 has a pretty hefty number of different factional options and endgames - not just different mobs/colours helping you do the same stuff, actual different objectives around the gamemap).
As the series went on, Vogel tried to differentiate his products by making Avernum the 'combat + dungeon crawling' one, and Geneforge the 'C+C one', and from that point the C+C just becomes insane. And in multiple ways as well: multiple quest solutions for just about everything, consequences for doing quests and for doing them in certain ways, factional and subfactional choices, different objectives for different factional pathways and different endgames...
As the series went on, Vogel tried to differentiate his products by making Avernum the 'combat + dungeon crawling' one, and Geneforge the 'C+C one', and from that point the C+C just becomes insane. And in multiple ways as well: multiple quest solutions for just about everything, consequences for doing quests and for doing them in certain ways, factional and subfactional choices, different objectives for different factional pathways and different endgames...
So true!Droog White Smile said:
That's why I never really got into Arcanum (awful combat being a non important issue).
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.