Interview The Pleasures of Age of Decadence at RPS

[Tigranes]

Not a choice really. Not in a combat heavy game like BG2 where only Keldorn can use the holy avenger, one of the very few (or was it the only) +5 weapons in the game.

Not all choices need to be equally weighted, though.

Anyway, just to make it clear, if you're trying to say the decisions you make in BG2 don't affect the world that much, yep, it doesn't.

It just does a bunch of other things instead. Doesn't mean it's not an RPG or it's 'fake choice'.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Doesn't mean it's ... 'fake choice'.

And yet that's what Bioware is best known for. Coincidence? I think not.

Not all choices need to be equally weighted, though.

No, of course not. But when you are offered to keep something or to lose it, is it really a choice? In PST you could sacrifice party members to gain powerful spells. Now THAT was a choice.

 

[Tigranes]

No, of course not. But when you are offered to keep something or to lose it, is it really a choice? In PST you could sacrifice party members to gain powerful spells. Now THAT was a choice.

True, they should have added on a bit where if you keep Keldorn, later on his marriage falls apart and he becomes a wreck or something (true to the BG2 soapdrama theme).

Basically I think BG2 gave you a lot of stories with some (not much) amount of choice, half of which were 'fake' in terms of effect. The main point was to take those constructed narratives for what they were and enjoy them... and if you couldn't, and wanted them to actually make sense and do stuff in thew orld (which is not an unreasonable expectation), then BG2 didn't give it up for ya.

*shrug* BG2 was big and great in its own way. Arguing about whether it's a REAL RPG is farcical. Suffice to say that you won't be going down that path with AoD. And that's good.

 

[The Feral Kid]

No, of course not. But when you are offered to keep something or to lose it, is it really a choice? In PST you could sacrifice party members to gain powerful spells. Now THAT was a choice.

Yet another self-refuting argument .

 

[Volourn]

"And yet that's what Bioware is best known for."

Wrong. That's what they're best known for by MORONS.

They're best known for their stories, and characters.

Tool.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

No, of course not. But when you are offered to keep something or to lose it, is it really a choice? In PST you could sacrifice party members to gain powerful spells. Now THAT was a choice.

Yet another self-refuting argument.

I'm pretty sure VD's saying something like "If there's a magic sword +5 and you're offered the chance to take it, are you really going to pass it up?"

And for the record, I agree with his definition of RPG but I haven't played BG2 so can't really comment.

Now if we were talking about The Witcher...

Didn't play Stalker. As for the rest, from the lowest to the highest:

BG2 - MW - Gothic - Jade Empire

Now where in there does The Witcher sit as an RPG...

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

BG2 - MW - Gothic - Jade Empire

Oh wow...Anyone want to refute this?

Sure thing. Morrowind should probably be the lowest. The only real choice/consequence scenario is that of the Great Houses. Even though there is a conflict between the Fighters Guild and the Thieves Guild, it's very easy to join both and avoid getting kicked out of either while rising to the top. There are plenty of choices, but most of them come dow to the "Would I like to kill the monster, or not?" type things.

Jade Empire has a bunch of choices, it has a great deal of dialogue skills, and there's always a good or a "hardass" option. Thing is, there's fuck all in terms of consequences. Maybe have it next to Morrowind. Maybe tied.

Gothic has the faction choice, which does make for some mutually exclusive gameplay elements, but that's about all I remember, though I do think that was pretty far-reaching.

BG2 has has a bunch of party conflicts that can result in party-infighting; certain party members will leave, or even fight against you if you do actions they disagree with; there are the stronghold questlines that are mutually exclusive of which some have good amounts of choices (and some even have consequences); one part in the main quest branches for a bit and could have some consequences, and there are a few quests in which certain actions will lead to consequences. I'd the list is more like...

1. BG2
2. Gothic
3. Jade Empire/Morrowind

Didn't play STALKER either.

 

[Volourn]

"Thing is, there's fuck all in terms of consequences"

Not true. Unless you've changed the defintion of 'fuck all' to 'not as much as FO'.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Now if we were talking about The Witcher...

Didn't play Stalker. As for the rest, from the lowest to the highest:

BG2 - MW - Gothic - Jade Empire

Now where in there does The Witcher sit as an RPG...

After Jade Empire. You have to at LEAST admit that much.

 

[Tigranes]

Jade Empire was so good, it left about as much an impression as Plain Bread.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Now if we were talking about The Witcher...

Didn't play Stalker. As for the rest, from the lowest to the highest:

BG2 - MW - Gothic - Jade Empire

Now where in there does The Witcher sit as an RPG...

After Jade Empire. You have to at LEAST admit that much.

I don't know. Jade Empire's still on my shelf, I haven't finished BG2 and I don't even have Gothic. The only game in that list I have finished is Morrowind and I couldn't even say The Witcher clearly beats that. Despite their choices and consequences, you ultimately do the same things and end up in the same places in both games. However, while Morrowind's options where to "do the quest" or "not do the quest", it did let you wander around of your own accord (apart from the linear Main Quest) and gave you a number of skill options which came into play (skills The Witcher doesn't even have). Comparatively, The Witcher forced pretty much 80% of its quests on you (even stuff that's got nothing to do with the main quest), forces the same combat on you, lacks any other real skills and gave you a very defined order to the game's progress that you couldn't change even partially.

Both games ultimately end up with the same skill set too as Morrowind eventually allows you to level everything up. If the focus is only on choices and consequences provided in quests, than The Witcher wins hands-down (simply because Morrowind didn't provide any options in quests) but if we're incorporating the choice in freedom of movement, choice in skills and choice in combat than I'd say it only just nudges ahead of Morrowind, simply because you did get to choose which colour jumper your team-mate was wearing. I also think The Witcher's a better overall game than Morrowind (If I had to play one again, it'd be The Witcher, not Morrowind even though I only finished The Witcher a month ago and I haven't played Morrowind in years).

I did play Stalker as well but I wouldn't put that in the list. If I had to, it'd be below Morrowind and The Witcher. Again, you do the same things like in both games but as an added negative, there's a complete and utter lack of skills in that game and the choices provided are few and far between (like The Witcher, which team you pick doesn't really matter either - it just changes which guys help you out later in the game).

 

[St. Toxic]

1. BG2
2. Gothic
3. Jade Empire/Morrowind

Didn't play STALKER either.

Sounds accurate enough.

As for what benefit he will bring when in your party, I don't know since I never had him.

+Regular badass in combat.
-Some initial reactions modified in the negative (this is true for any party with a mutant)

You should have gone for Vic, Dick - I'm sure you had him on board. He's tied in to the main quest, aldoh bringing him along is optional, and him being there changes some of the gameplay and dialogues, in Vault City in particular.

 

[Wyrmlord]

http://www.cyoa.com/

Only a dumbass would define something by a criteria, " choice and consequnces" in this case, that didn't even appear until after the genre itself was well established. Nice logic that.

Glad you like it. Anyway, I think now would be a good time to remind everyone that RPGs had not begun with those primitive dungeon crawlers of the 80's. Never heard of PnP? RPGs have always revolved around players' choices and being able to approach a situation in different ways. Why should we forget that and pretend it never happened?

PnP RPGs - which were based on tabletop wargames, like Chainmail and the original Dungeons And Dragons. This has been mentioned several times in this forum.

Why should we forget that and pretend that never happened?

 

[almondblight]

Take Baldur’s Gate 2, for example. It has a lot of great qualities, but it’s not really a role-playing game.

If you’re looking for some interesting story-driven RPGs, I’d recommend Planescape: Torment (simply the best), Mask of the Betrayer, the first two Realms of Arkania games, the Baldur’s Gate games, the Witcher, Knights of the Old Republic games, and for good measure, Betrayal at Krondor and Betrayal in Antara.

 

[Volourn]

Like I said. He's trolling. This is old news.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I think you guys are getting hung up on semantics (which oddly enough is something VD does all the time KHARMA LULZ). VD's definition of "story-driven RPG":

Story-driven RPG – a game where story is actually important. In fact, it’s so important that anything else, including your freedom of choices, is secondary. When a game starts and you are quickly explained that you are a huge emo who will follow his father/brother/another emo anywhere, odds are you’re playing a story-driven game.

The rest of that article makes it pretty clear what an actual "RPG" is and how it compares to VD's definition of "Story-driven RPG". His definition is that the two things may be similar but they are not the same. He's saying Baldur's Gate isn't an RPG the same way Diablo isn't an RPG. Diablo is not an "RPG" because it's an "Action RPG". Likewise Baldur's Gate is not an "RPG" because it's a "Story-driven RPG". Particularly in a question "What’s the key important parts of RPGs for you? Why? And how does Age of Decadence deliver on them?" and then goes on to talk about the focus on role-playing as opposed to story-telling.

He'd probably have been better off if he'd dropped the word "RPG" from the end of story-driven or simply said in the article that Baldur's Gate was a "Story-driven RPG" and then go on to say that means it's not a real "RPG" as it lacks choices and consequences in your role-playing but... eh.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

In PST you could sacrifice party members to gain powerful spells. Now THAT was a choice.

In theory, yes. Just like deciding to dump or to keep Keldorn is.

In reality no, the spells are lousy (not powerful you evil liar) and not worth it. So in the end, you keep Keldorn (unless he annoys you) just like you keep your PST companions (unless they annoy you).

What's with the systematical dissing of everything BG2 offers in the C&C department ? Are you really up against the game itself, or the fact that many people consider it the epitome of CRPGs ?

 

[janjetina]

Compared to games like Fallout, Arcanum, or Prelude to Darkness, and even Planescape: Torment, BG 2 is C&C light, because C&C in BG2 are local, affecting only small parts of the gameplay. The number of choices is not small at all, most of the choices are binary, some choices don't provide real consequences, but some do.

The problem in BG2 c&c, is that many choices there are the "right" and the "wrong" choice, with consequences of the "right" choice being much better than the consequences of the "wrong" choice. This represents bad design, but doesn't change the fact that the choices and the consequences are present.

For example, right from the start, the choice of your class provides you with a stronghold questline, while cutting off other stronghold questlines, resulting in very different gameplay experiences, for a while.

Depending on your choices he will also stay with the family or go with you.

Not a choice really. Not in a combat heavy game like BG2 where only Keldorn can use the holy avenger, one of the very few (or was it the only) +5 weapons in the game.

Presuming you don't possess metagame knowledge or precognition powers, it's a real choice (and that choice itself is the consequence of the previous choice you missed quoting).

You can choose to side with Aron or Bodhi causing different development of that part of the story.

What does it affect? The outcome is the same. You get captured and Bodhi's behavior and role are exactly the same. Bodhi could have saved you from the gantlet run and let you go. Wouldn't have cost Bio anything, but would have been a nice reward for siding with her.

This example illustrates the kind of c&c BG2 has. There are two mutually exclusive choices. Each choice offers a different gameplay experience for a while. Then, both paths are funneled together to continue with the story. Consequences are temporally localized. Still, they meet the criteria:

A meaningful choice would have consequences - some kind of effect on the gameworld and/or gameplay.

Additional consequences would improve the experience, but c&c are there, though design needs improvement.

Depending on your interactions and what you say to companions available for romance you will have a romance with one and make the other romances unavailable with all their subquests.

Surely you're jesting with me.

The romances are cheesy, however, they do provide different gameplay experience (in terms of romance dialogues and final rewards), based on the choice who to romance. And the romance extends to ToB, so that is one of few choices with lasting consequences.

When you have to deal with baron ployer who cursed Jaheira you can do it in two ways with different outcomes on that particular fight.
It can be easier or harder because of those choices.

Hated that bitch, so never had that quest; can't comment.

Ignorantia iuris nocet.
Actually, there are even more ways to handle that quest (you can dump Jaheira, you can do nothing and she either leaves or dies, I don't remember exactly, you can pay the wizards to do nothing, you can pay them to turn on Ployer and attack them with you, or you can fight the wizards and Ployer together).

Anomen - finally, a simple choice between him becoming a knight and him failing miserably and not becoming a knight. No real effect on the game because his membership doesn't offer anything. So the choice is basically "do you want a party member with or without a stat bonus?" Hmm, that's a tough one...

As far as I remember, if he fails his knighthood, at some point (banter) later in the game he goes berserk and attacks Aerie, so there are some far-reaching consequences. Also, his banters are different, depending on whether he was accepted into the Order or not.

Attaining / failing his knighthood is a delayed consequence of the way you handled the quest of Anomen's murdered sister. This is actually a good example of real c&c.

Choosing to take Viconia along with Keldorn in the party will eventually lead to the fight between them.

 

[The Feral Kid]

And for the record, I agree with his definition of RPG but I haven't played BG2 so can't really comment.

What consists of a "meaningful" choice is way too subjective to be considered as the single one factor that decides a game's rpg status. And VD's example was such. When in a game the stats of the character decide how successful or unsuccessful he/she is in a number of gameplay aspects (which happens in BG 2) then this game is an rpg.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What consists of a "meaningful" choice is way too subjective to be considered as the single one factor that decides a game's rpg status.

Role-playing - letting your character make decisions (which, hopefully, go beyond choosing the right party member), which requires meaningful choices. Therefore, choices is the most important aspect. In my opinion. You have a different opinion? Fantastic.

And VD's example was such. When in a game the stats of the character decide how successful or unsuccessful he/she is in a number of gameplay aspects (which happens in BG 2) then this game is an rpg.

What you fail to realize is that in BG you are always successful otherwise you won't even get out of the starting dungeon. Sure, you can roll for hours and make a full party of uber characters, or you can take the first character you roll and get second-rate party members, and guess what, both parties will fight the same battles and both parties will end up winning. There is no REAL difference, which is why nobody celebrates when yet another company announces a game with different combat classes.

"And yet that's what Bioware is best known for."

Wrong. That's what they're best known for by MORONS.

From Saint's NWN review (which can be easily applied to BG2):

"Role play? Where?

NWN's story is pretty much set in stone, no matter how you play it. No matter what you do, you can never save Fenthick. As mentioned before, you can also never kill Desther early, because the end of Act I must have Desther betray Neverwinter and be executed. Because of this, you're powerless in the story. You'll never make the slightest difference until the bitter end because the story can't be changed.
...
However, the biggest problem with the fixed, unwavering story is that you have to question your role in the world. If you can't really change anything, how important can you really be beyond a superficial nature? Basically, your role in the game is the guy who kills enough stuff, or the right stuff, in order to achieve the next bit of story, which is always the same. Your character is, in essence, inessential to the plot other than being the grunt who racks up a body count.

That's honestly what the whole game boils down to being, just another fairly mindless hack and slash game that uses D&D as a selling point.
...
Furthermore, as mentioned in the character discussion, dialogue is really rather useless. You might learn more about a person than you would if you had lesser attributes or didn't invest much in a skill, but what's the point if it really doesn't do much other than that throughout the course of the game? If I have a high Wisdom, Charisma, and am skilled in diplomacy, why can't I use that to change the course of events in a peaceful fashion most of the time? There are a few subplots where this works, but it often involves a bribe as well. However, it doesn't matter at all for the main plot because those events are predetermined, and heaven forbid you alter the events of the story. Truth be known, NWN almost plays like a console RPG where you're merely wandering your way through someone else's idea of what should happen in your CRPG. "

 

[The Feral Kid]

What you fail to realize is that in BG you are always successful otherwise you won't even get out of the starting dungeon. Sure, you can roll for hours and make a full party of uber characters, or you can take the first character you roll and get second-rate party members, and guess what, both parties will fight the same battles and both parties will end up winning. There is no REAL difference, which is why nobody celebrates when yet another company announces a game with different combat classes.

What you fail to realize is that a stat system that enables the player to have a different approach is the de facto convention that defines an rpg. A thief specializing in backstabbing will have different approach and access to different items/areas than one that specializes in detecting traps. A fighter may sacrifice a few strength points that'll make him weaker in melee, but put them in wisdom so he becomes less vulnerable in certain spells. What you refer to is a gimmick, something that spices up the whole thing, giving you the illussion that your choices matter. Nice to have around but not a pre-requisite of any sort.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

In your sermon you state that "Anything else is secondary. It doesn't matter whether the game is turn-based or real-time, first person or isometric, filled with action combat or Hamlet-approved monologues; as long as the focus is on making decisions fitting your character and enjoying ass-biting consequences, we're talking about classic RPG here."

If you wish to take tabletop gaming as your example, then I ask you, where is the real time combat in tabletop games? I mean, if you wish to use these strictures, then surely you should also use the proper combat mechanics as well?

 

[Vault Dweller]

PnP RPGs - which were based on tabletop wargames, like Chainmail and the original Dungeons And Dragons. This has been mentioned several times in this forum.

Why should we forget that and pretend that never happened?

:facepalm:

Wargames led to RPGs, creating a very different product. There are PnP and computer wargames. There are PnP and computer RPGs. PnP RPGs led to cRPGs, which is the same product, different medium.

When I point at PnP RPGs I point at the same product, showing that choices and options are not some modern evolution, but something that was there from the beginning but was sidelined by the fascination with "let's just kill monsters!"

Take Baldur’s Gate 2, for example. It has a lot of great qualities, but it’s not really a role-playing game.

If you’re looking for some interesting story-driven RPGs, I’d recommend Planescape: Torment (simply the best), Mask of the Betrayer, the first two Realms of Arkania games, the Baldur’s Gate games, the Witcher, Knights of the Old Republic games, and for good measure, Betrayal at Krondor and Betrayal in Antara.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic ... 913#675913

What you fail to realize is that a stat system that enables the player to have a different approach is the de facto convention that defines an rpg. A thief specializing in backstabbing will have different approach and access to different items/areas than one that specializes in detecting traps. A fighter may sacrifice a few strength points that'll make him weaker in melee, but put them in wisdom so he becomes less vulnerable in certain spells.

What you are talking about is "killing things in different ways". I loved ToEE. I played it many times, trying different parties and developing different tactics. That was definitely fun. I like BG2, which is why I replayed it recently. It's a great action-adventure game. RPG, whatever. However, neither ToEE nor BG2 can be compared to real role-playing games that offered more than killing things in different way, because in the end, killing things in different ways will create exactly the same experience.

A great choice with consequences is far more important and memorable than your wise fighter making his saving roll. Why? Because each and every battle will have exactly the same outcome both for your WIS 12 fighter and a WIS 6 fighter.

If you wish to take tabletop gaming as your example, then I ask you, where is the real time combat in tabletop games? I mean, if you wish to use these strictures, then surely you should also use the proper combat mechanics as well?

Ideally, I prefer TB and I believe my preference in this matter is well known. However, choices are more important than the combat mode, and if I have to pick one feature, that would be choices.

 

[The Feral Kid]

What you are talking about is "killing things in different ways".

It's not limited on that. This is an artificial constriction you made up yourself.

 

[BethesdaLove]

So what are the meaningful choises in F1 that affect the gameworld?