Interview The Pleasures of Age of Decadence at RPS

[hicksman]

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

I'm guessing the quests that relate to the ending slideshow, where it goes through the aftermath of some of your quests and the impact it had.

Trouble is, I didn't really feel one way or another about any of that. Maybe it was more complex than I thought, but saving a town or reuniting people is just the usual quests in lots of RPGs. Summing it up in the end as if those are major impacts on the game world is just a bit of iceing on the cake, not the lynchpin of whether its an RPG.

On another note, VD, I'll accept your opinion for what it is, but I can't wait to play AoD and see such meaningful C&C that it passes even your own tough standards. This is one time where someone has the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.

 

[hiver]

What Janjetina said. he gave the same answers to specific quotes i would so i wont repeat them.

Basically:

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.

When you get bards stronghold there is a whole play being staged and you are director and you have to make numerous decisions on the play which all have the effect on how well its performed and received.

Which affects what exactly?

Your gameplay experience.

You have a choice of following Irenicus through the portal or by boat. Whole area missed or not because of it.

Good design?

In this case - yes. Makes sense. If you folow through the portal you get to Underdark directly and if you follow with a boat you get into some shit/problems = optional quest.

Also:

In Underdark numerous choices with dealing with swirfneblin, burried mage and especially during quests in Drow city - Phaere quests, Mother matron and Dragon eggs all with different outcomes.

I didnt go into specific because i think you know these choices and consequences well if you played it.

Again these are local but still, they are there.

After you exit Underdark you can also get some help in fighting Bodhi and who joins you may depend on your previous choices.

If you sided with Bodhi - which means you had to erase thiefs guild - you wont be able to get help from them.


All in all BG2 isnt a C&C heavy game and many of these could have been done better but it has a lot of them anyway.

I just wanted to point out that saying it doesnt have them is simply wrong.

Your description in fact fits Ice Wind Dale much better because thats the completely linear game where you really dont have any C&C in dialogue or story and gameplay experience outside combat and related stats.
Which doesnt qualify anyway, really.


BG2 is infact somewhere between story driven action RPG and a REAL ROLE PLAYING C&C heavy game. Possibly closer to story driven rpg on that scale.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The good ol' days....

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1935

"I agree. To me, Baldur's Gate and other IE games (PST aside) are just action/squad-based strategy games. When I play, I don't look at them as RPGs. I just kill the bad guys."

What happened to the Codex?

 

[almondblight]

They wised up.

Words are used to convey meaning. If everyone tomorrow called cats balloons, balloons would mean cats. It pisses me off when people misuse a phrase so much that it has a new meaning, but that happens, and I accept it.

However, this isn't what's happening here. Just as you are correct that Darklands came out as an RPG before, so did a ton of dungeon crawls and the like, all of which were called RPGs. So it's not even the case that everyone misuses the term so much now that it has a different definition. It's that the definition held by most people, as well as the historical one, is one that you don't like so you create a new one for it. So you can go ahead and create a new definition, and tell people it's the one true one. Good for you. It could even catch on and replace the current (and historical) definition. But many people will think it's silly.

 

[Vault Dweller]

However, this isn't what's happening here. Just as you are correct that Darklands came out as an RPG before, so did a ton of dungeon crawls and the like, all of which were called RPGs.

And I'm not taking it away from them. Just like 'automobile', RPG became too generic a term, which can no longer define, which is what I said in the article:

"If you are told that a new shooter is announced, you have a pretty good idea of what to expect. If you are told that a new RPG is announced, that tells you nothing at all. Japanese or Western? North American or European? Action or story-driven? Sandbox? Dungeon crawler? Original or licensed?"

So you can go ahead and create a new definition, and tell people it's the one true one.

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/in ... opic=198.0

"1) I'm not trying to define the genre or the sub-genres for you. There are many ways to sort and organize an imaginary pile of all kinds of RPGs. Some people, for example, will define action RPGs as games using players' skills and reflexes instead of the character's, or will prefer to sort games into real-time and turn-based. I'm simply offering you what makes sense to me and I invite you to discuss and argue these obviously very important matters until heads start exploding."

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

Play the game and find out. Then come back and either tell me what they are or prove that the game doesn't have any. What's with silly questions, children?

Trouble is, I didn't really feel one way or another about any of that. Maybe it was more complex than I thought, but saving a town or reuniting people is just the usual quests in lots of RPGs. Summing it up in the end as if those are major impacts on the game world is just a bit of iceing on the cake, not the lynchpin of whether its an RPG.

Now that I understand. Some people don't really care about choices and prefer a well crafted story or tactical combat instead. For me choices are the most important element and that's all I'm saying and selling.

On another note, VD, I'll accept your opinion for what it is, but I can't wait to play AoD and see such meaningful C&C that it passes even your own tough standards.

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/in ... opic=610.0

Overall though, if you want to see a game loaded with choices and consequences, play Arcanum - the finest RPG ever created.

 

[RuySan]

I'd rather play BG2 or ToEE again than Arcanum, with its dull dungeons and combat. Which just proves how much C&C mean to me.

 

[Warden]

(Not having read anything.)

VD, stop posting, you just do harm to this game in the same way Gaider's logorrheic posts damage DA.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'd rather play BG2 or ToEE again than Arcanum, with its dull dungeons and combat. Which just proves how much C&C mean to me.

So, what's your point, other than "C&C mean nothing to me!!!"?

 

[almondblight]

And I'm not taking it away from them.

You are if you say BG2 isn't a real RPG.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I casually mentioned "but it’s not really a role-playing game. It’s more of an action adventure game with adjustable stats." Not the same as making an official "People of the republic! I want you to know the truth! BG2 is not a real RPG!!! Remember, you've heard it first from me!" statement.

 

[St. Toxic]

People of the republic! cRPG's have a closer relation to text-based adventure games than they have to PnP.

 

[Tardvapor]

Fun thread.

I agree that Fallout 1 & 2, Arcanum, Bloodlines, and Planescape are the cRPG's closest to emulating PnP and therefore can be considered the only "real" RPG's. I always felt the BG games were more action / adventure games, and while fun, neither held my interest to completion.

Really, the "define RPG" argument is pretty silly though isn't it?

I've gotten a big kick though out of all the butt-soreness going around with those of you who say, "I love RPGs and BG2 is the best evar!! I will defend it's status because I know my INT is 18!!"

Oh and this Volourn kid is obviously really pissed that VD is a better troll than he is. I loved that part where VD was all like, "snarky sarcasm" and Volly retorted with, "he's a liar!!" I lol'd big time. Were you stomping your foot when you typed that? You're so cute!! :tickle: :tickle:

Looking forward to AoD my man, get that shit out this year so I've got something to play besides X-com and the above mentioned games again.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

How so? The stronghold questlines are minor at best and affect nothing.

For example, Nalia's keep offers you:

- angry merchant who lost his caravan:

Buy debts for 1000 and 500 for mercenaries: 15,000
Pay him 1000 and 500 for mercenaries: 15,000
Pay him 1000 and 250 for mercenaries: 0
Pay him 500 (CHA of 15+) and 500 for mercs: 15,000

verwhelmed by choices:

- the stealing guard:

Forgive him: 15,500 exp
Expel him: 11,500 exp
Execute: nothing

- the traveling cleric:

Let him stay: 15,500 exp
Don't take stranger into keep: 11,500 exp
Tell him to beat it: nothing

and so on.

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).

Unless your character is paladin, why would you let him go for no good reason?

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.

The superficial, leading nowhere kind.

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

What changed as a result of your choice? Nothing, really. The game ignored your choice and pretended it never happened after a certain point.

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.

*sigh

We need to define more words. According to you, everything is different gameplay experience. Playing an amazon in Diablo 2 instead of playing a barbarian is not a "different gameplay experience", at least not in the context of choices & game-affecting consequences.

 

[Vault Dweller]

When you get bards stronghold there is a whole play being staged and you are director and you have to make numerous decisions on the play which all have the effect on how well its performed and received.

Which affects what exactly?

Your gameplay experience.

If you folow through the portal you get to Underdark directly and if you follow with a boat you get into some shit/problems = optional quest.

Optional quest? No kidding? Well, that's definitely deep. I guess it really is an RPG after all.

All in all BG2 isnt a C&C heavy game and many of these could have been done better but it has a lot of them anyway.

So did Fable, but for some reasons I don't recall it being praised around here.

 

[made]

What happened to the Codex?

After DU's putsh and your forced exile, the ESF refugess quickly rose to power and began the re-education of the Codex populace as per the decree of their Bethesdian masters. In a nutshell.

 

[St. Toxic]

I think alot of people, in blind admiration, followed VD's example when he fellated FO3, and now that he has flip-flopped they're angrily trying to reconcile their confused feelings, in whatever way they can.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Instead of a consistent and logical world, we get "cool shit". What's cool shit, you ask? An excellent question. Cool shit is whatever stuff random Bethesda designers thought would be cool. To be honest, Fallout 2 was also sporadically guilty of this syndrome, but Fallout 3 takes it to a thoroughly different level.
...
Overall, it would be easy to write a report worthy of an EU bureaucrat listing all the silly and stupid things Bethesda has shoehorned into Fallout 3. The biggest problem is not so much that it isn’t Fallout, but rather that the setting doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Bethesda had an opportunity to craft a cohesive “living & breathing” world, but instead chose to build an amusement park with a bit of everything ‘cool’ they could think of. To be fair, some things Bethesda did are brilliant and atmospheric, but they are isolated elements that never form a coherent and consistent world that makes even the most basic sense.

...

"Violence done well is fucking hilarious."
Todd Howard, a boy-genius

Unfortunately, the combat system is mediocre at best and the only thing that could be described as "fucking hilarious" is Bethesda's failure to come up with something interesting and engaging.

...

The main quest is one of the game's biggest weaknesses. It doesn't make sense. The water contains radiation and thus isn't safe to drink. Maybe if people stopped playing with nuclear catapults and blowing up nuclear cars, the situation would improve… Anyway, even though it's relatively easy to purify radioactive water - see the quote above - top East Coast scientists, including your dad, have been trying to find a much more complex and unnecessary solution, known as Project Purity. They fail miserably at first, then you dad enters that "shall never be opened" Vault 101, raises you, but after watching a Blues Brothers rerun, decides to put the band together again and leaves the vault. You have no choice but to follow him, so the "shall never be opened" vault is opened again.

You spend some time searching for your father, asking everyone "have you seen my father, the middle-aged guy?", and that's the best part of the main quest and the game. Once you're reunited, the game hops on rails and takes you on a magical tour through one of the most idiotic game endings in the history of video games. Investing into a pair of good writers and story-tellers should be the top priority for Bethesda. The drop in quality, comparing the game to Daggerfall and Morrowind, is very noticeable and painful to experience.

I'm such a whore.

 

[elander_]

What changed as a result of your choice? Nothing, really. The game ignored your choice and pretended it never happened after a certain point.

It's true that chapters are always more or less the same but that's why the game is called a story focused crpg and is organized into chapters. You still have quest choices and many quest choices affect the world in a non trivial way. This is not the design of an adventure game. In an adventure game designers would not bother creating opposing factions for you to join. Some companion quests are very good, while others are irrelevant. Keldorn and Anomen are very good.

 

[Hamster]

Hm, so, VD, you say that BG2 is action-adventure with stats, not an RPG. Ok, that describes BG2 pretty well. But since BG2 is now in it's own genre of action adventure with stats, i hope you wont be thinking of criticising BG2 or any other action adventure for lacking qualities of RPG, a completely different genre as you say?

 

[elander_]

I agree that Fallout 1 & 2, Arcanum, Bloodlines, and Planescape are the cRPG's closest to emulating PnP and therefore can be considered the only "real" RPG's. I always felt the BG games were more action / adventure games, and while fun, neither held my interest to completion.

The problem with this is that there isn't just one kind of PnP. Fallout is closer to emulate GURPS which was the favorite PnP of Fallout authors and that's it.

Really, the "define RPG" argument is pretty silly though isn't it?

Using an old Fallout line, definitions are like assholes - everyone has one.

 

[BethesdaLove]

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

Play the game and find out. Then come back and either tell me what they are or prove that the game doesn't have any. What's with silly questions, children?

Children, huh? Hmm...
Played the game. Dont want to prove that it has none. Want to see what you define as a meaningful gameworld affecting choise. Because its a pretty far reaching statement. I agree that BG2 isnt a C&C wonder, not even close. But still as far as I can remember, the bigest world affecting choise in F1 was in Necropolis where the Ghouls disappear. Call it a macro-consequence. Another example that I would consider macro are some faction or area related consequences where exclusivity plays a role. BG2 has some with thieves/vampires, plane traveling, underwater city where the consequnces are different locations to go through which isnt a good consequence acording to your interpretation(?) but in my opinion actually more important than consequences which are "rewards/sacrifices" of some kind (micro). That said everything else in F1 is a micro-consequence à la BG2 but with more interesting choises and consequences and far more statchecks.

Unrelated:
I thought a little about quests in rpgs and what I have come up with are those types:

1. save/kill x (life, could be "item")
2. get x from/to (item)
3. solve crime/riddle/x (info)

Anyone cares to disagree?

 

[St. Toxic]

I'm such a whore.

Why, did you get paid? I just meant that you carry the particular female trait of not knowing what the fuck you're on about at any given time, and, when pushed, will argue in circles, countering things you yourself have said. Maybe you should just break things and use temper tantrums to get your point across, since you obviously lack the consistency needed to carry an actual argument?

 

[janjetina]

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.

How so? The stronghold questlines are minor at best and affect nothing.

For example, Nalia's keep offers you:

- angry merchant who lost his caravan:

Buy debts for 1000 and 500 for mercenaries: 15,000
Pay him 1000 and 500 for mercenaries: 15,000
Pay him 1000 and 250 for mercenaries: 0
Pay him 500 (CHA of 15+) and 500 for mercs: 15,000

verwhelmed by choices:

- the stealing guard:

Forgive him: 15,500 exp
Expel him: 11,500 exp
Execute: nothing

- the traveling cleric:

Let him stay: 15,500 exp
Don't take stranger into keep: 11,500 exp
Tell him to beat it: nothing

and so on.

This questline is different compared to, e.g. Wizard stronghold quests, so it constitutes a different gameplay experience compared to Wizard stronghold quests, so the choice of your class affects the game, which was my point. The quality (or lack of it) and the scope of the questline is not an issue here, but its existence and the existence of its mutually exclusive counterparts. Hence, the choice of the class has certain consequences.

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).

Unless your character is paladin, why would you let him go for no good reason?

The reason is an unselfish one - putting Keldorn's marriage before your needs. Consequences for making that choice or alternative choices in that questline should have been present, there was a lot of squandered potential there. I'm not trying to defend BG2 design here.

This example illustrates the kind of c&c BG2 has.

The superficial, leading nowhere kind.

Well, yes, but still, there are two disjunctive sets of three different quests available depending on the choice. Also, getting help from the Shadow thieves at the end of the game depends on that choice. Like I said, c&c are there - they are temporally localized and not particularly deep, but they exist.

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

What changed as a result of your choice? Nothing, really. The game ignored your choice and pretended it never happened after a certain point.

Solving three different quests constitutes a part of the gameplay. Which three quests (Bodhi or Shadow thief ones) you'll get the opportunity to solve, depends on your choice. So, a small part of the gameplay changed as a result of your choice.

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.

*sigh

We need to define more words. According to you, everything is different gameplay experience. Playing an amazon in Diablo 2 instead of playing a barbarian is not a "different gameplay experience", at least not in the context of choices & game-affecting consequences.

So, getting different dialogue options, in your opinion, is comparable to the "differences" in playing different D2 characters? Interesting. Forget for one second the quality of the said dialogues, and focus on a fact that the dialogues are different, based on the choice made previously in the game.

On an unrelated note, one thing that bothers me a lot is about BG2 that there are almost no stat and skill checks outside of the DnD combat mechanics (except a few reputation checks with the merchants, one dexterity check in TOB, and one strength check in ToB).

 

[Tardvapor]

The problem with this is that there isn't just one kind of PnP. Fallout is closer to emulate GURPS which was the favorite PnP of Fallout authors and that's it.

I disagree with that. There is only one type of PnP role playing, and the meat of all those games is role playing a character. The differences lie only in stats, settings, and what kind of dice you roll. And I'd say Baldur's Gate is closer to real-time with pause table top wargaming than it is to tabletop role-playing.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What changed as a result of your choice? Nothing, really. The game ignored your choice and pretended it never happened after a certain point.

It's true that chapters are always more or less the same but that's why the game is called a story focused crpg and is organized into chapters.

Well aware of it.

Hm, so, VD, you say that BG2 is action-adventure with stats, not an RPG. Ok, that describes BG2 pretty well. But since BG2 is now in it's own genre of action adventure with stats, i hope you wont be thinking of criticising BG2 or any other action adventure for lacking qualities of RPG, a completely different genre as you say?

Do I rant weekly about the lack of choices & consequences in BG2? My entire point about FO3 was "it's an action RPG; it's kinda pointless to expect Fallout-like role-playing from it", which is why St. Toxic is still angry with me.

Why, did you get paid?

I asked them to donate my pay to 'Help a Retard' foundation. So, hang in there, you'll probably be contacted soon.

I just meant that you carry the particular female trait of not knowing what the fuck you're on about at any given time, and, when pushed, will argue in circles, countering things you yourself have said.

Proof?

Played the game. Dont want to prove that it has none. Want to see what you define as a meaningful gameworld affecting choise. Because its a pretty far reaching statement. I agree that BG2 isnt a C&C wonder, not even close. But still as far as I can remember, the bigest world affecting choise in F1 was in Necropolis where the Ghouls disappear.

You're reading too much into what I said, expecting some radical gameplay changes or "macro-consequences" as you call them. I gave plenty of examples in that RPS article.

...underwater city where the consequnces are different locations to go through which isnt a good consequence acording to your interpretation(?) but in my opinion actually more important than consequences which are "rewards/sacrifices" of some kind (micro).

There are many different issues here, but basically, any player would prefer an extra location to pretty much anything else, which makes the "go left - get an extra location, go right - get, uh, nothing, sorry" design dumb by default. It's not really an example of C&C well done. It's an example of poor design.

This questline is different compared to, e.g. Wizard stronghold quests, so it constitutes a different gameplay experience compared to Wizard stronghold quests, so the choice of your class affects the game, which was my point.

Like I said, you take "different gameplay experience" thing too literally. It's like "role-playing -> playing a role -> every game is a role-playing game!" arguments. According to your logic, every game delivers "different gameplay experience", thus every game is an awesome RPG!

In Bioshock I can either rescue or harvest the little sisters! Different gameplay experience! In the Witcher I can invite a friend of my choice to the party - different gameplay experience! See what I mean?

The reason is an unselfish one - putting Keldorn's marriage before your needs.

Dude. It's a game. He is a pixel character. He has no needs, he has no marriage, and he can't live a happy life with his wife if you let him go.