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.

What's your preferred flavor of cRPG?

What would be your ideal style of a hypothetical "good" cRPG?

  • Linear i.e. Do A then B then C

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Linear w/ side quests A, B, C with optional side missions

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Linear with branching A,B then choose the C,D or X,Y path

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Linear w/open world i.e. pick up and leave the plot as you wish

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non-linear aka sandbox, go do what you want

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

LCJr.

Erudite
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
2,469
Something unusual happened to today. I was thinking. Yes it's hard to believe but true. What I was thinking is we need another poll to gauge the RPG tastes of the hivemind.

So for the sake of argument lets say we have a hypothetical good game. In your opinion what would be the ideal way to play through the game?
 

sheek

Arbiter
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,659
Location
Cydonia
In between "Linear with branching A,B then choose the C,D or X,Y path" and "Linear w/open world i.e. pick up and leave the plot as you wish". Voted for the first because in my experience the pseudo-sandbox approach never delivers and you get a repeatable but boring experience instead.
 

Lord Chambers

Erudite
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
1,018
Linear w/ side quests A, B, C with optional side missions
Side quests come in two varieties and generally a game either uses one kind or the other:
Stapled-on, after-thought, content-adders to make the game less short. These quests are meaningless, and I lack motivations to do them. The only motivation is usually some sort of reward, which in turn throws off the balance of pursuing the main quest by providing your character(s) with experience and equipment. If you don't find a motivation to do the side quests then you will be unable to progress on your main "quest." If you do all the side quests because you're a gamer like most people, and don't give a shit about your character's motivations, then you'll have a normal, or easy romp through the main "quest."

Integrated side quests which make sense in the game world. You can find many examples of these in the "good" RPGs like Fallout and Arcanum. However, I still don't like these kinds, because the very nature of their sideness makes them unimportant. The only motivation for doing the side quests is, again, some sort of reward, which, again, impacts the balance of the game. The only thing that makes this variety of quest better is because consequences which can make replay more interesting. But that is merely a difference of being done poorly or being done well. Fallout and Arcanum feature integrated side quests mostly. Wizardry 8 and Gothic feature the former type of quest that exists in a vacuum.

In either case, I'm still opposed to the whole concept of "side" quest. It's either important or not. If so, you don't call it a side quest, it's part of the plot. Designers should stop filling their games out with side quests. I don't get to a town and want to solve everyone's problems, nor do I want to miss out on all the rewards that a player who does will reap. I want to pursue my character's motivation to solve the main quest without optional diversion (or the corresponding optional handicapping).

Non-linear aka sandbox, go do what you want
This is even worse. People revel in their freedom to ignore the main quest (even when it's a fucking daedric invasion). I reject the notion that the main quest should even be thought of as a quest. To a lesser degree in any RPG since Diablo, but conspicuously so in Oblivion, the main quest is just simply a long side quest where characters claim it's really important. It reduces the quality of the quest and reduces the motivation factor for the player.

Linear i.e. Do A then B then C
Sounds like a JRPG. They can be perfectly enjoyable. Your direction and goal is single-minded, but that doesn't necessitate that it is boring. This mode just lacks replay value, which really isn't something I look for in games, even though for developers it's an important value. If I had to choose between replay value or a well-done, linear experience, I'd choose the latter.

Of course, it also lacks options and opportunity, which can kill you if you're trying to roleplay a character you want to play, but if you accept that you're roleplaying Cloud the same way you'd accept you're roleplaying Avatar, you can see that all the choices presented in game (which you never get to make) are all consistent to the character.

Linear w/open world i.e. pick up and leave the plot as you wish
I don't really understand what this means. I can't think of any games it really applies to since I'd rather lump all the sandbox games into the sandbox category.

Linear with branching A,B then choose the C,D or X,Y path
This is perfect. This is exactly what I'd want as a player, since the sandbox shit doesn't make me motivated to do anything, and the side quest model that pervades almost all other RPGs is both retarded and leaves me feeling penalized if I don't do the side quests. Coming to a branching point would be awesome, because I'd feel like I had control over the story. I'd feel like my character would really be able to act his role in some way, and I would know that a person choosing a different path would be missing out on mine.

This structure would still make for a shitty game if the designers were poor. For instance, only ever giving you two paths (the C,D or X,Y paths), or making the path options too easily categorized like the good path versus the evil path, the fighter path versus the theif path versus the diplomat path, would result in a shittier game. But this structure done well presents the best opportunities for roleplaying and interesting narrative/plot of all the other structures done equally well.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
5,933
Location
Scotland
Of course, it also lacks options and opportunity, which can kill you if you're trying to roleplay a character you want to play, but if you accept that you're roleplaying Cloud the same way you'd accept you're roleplaying Avatar, you can see that all the choices presented in game (which you never get to make) are all consistent to the character.

kingcomrade said:
 

Jasede

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
24,793
Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Codex Year of the Donut I'm very into cock and ball torture
AoD, faggot.

And I would consider Fallout non-linear, too. "Get the waterchip!" isn't really a linear quest. [Even if you always end up getting it in the same place in the end]
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
372
Honestly, I think all the options have their merits, and a good game is a good game, regardless of how linear/non-linear it is. I guess it depends on my current mood, as I'm pretty sure I've enjoyed games in most, if not all, of these categories. I don't necessarily always want the option to be able to go and do whatever want. Other times, I don't want to be told exactly what to do.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
Jasede said:
AoD, faggot.

Can hardly blame the poll for not having an option for unreleased games.

And I would consider Fallout non-linear, too. "Get the waterchip!" isn't really a linear quest. [Even if you always end up getting it in the same place in the end]

What's the difference between a sandbox game and a non-sandbox game? Maybe VD can answer this, as well.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Sandbox - the gameplay focus is on exploration and random activities, defined by the overall lack of purpose and focus. Main quest usually represent less than 10% of gameplay. You play such games to "live" in the gameworld, not to push forward the main quest.

Non-linear, non-sandbox game - the gameplay focus is on the main quest, but it's flexible enough to allow you to handle it in different ways and progress through different points.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
I think the major flag between a sandbox RPG and other RPGs is the presence of a plot or storyline that drives (dominates is maybe more appropriate) gameplay. A sandbox game, if you'll give me a little license, is like playing skirmish mode in a strategy game.

There are, of course, a lot of specifics that change from game to game (random generation, building/base construction, etc.), but the generic-ness of a sandbox game because of the lack of a storytelling device is what sets it apart.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
Interesting. By VD's definition, a non-linear, non-sandbox game is closest in form to a linear-but-branching game, simply with larger and/or more branches? If so, would you say that the ability to undertake the main quest whenever you wanted is the mark of a sandbox game, or a non-sandbox game?

but the generic-ness of a sandbox game because of the lack of a storytelling device is what sets it apart.

But is that a weakness of the game or of the form? We know that Bethesda's recent games tend to be light on the storytelling aspects, but good MMOs are quite successful in their use of dynamic events as story.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
If I can presume to speak in his place, he either means no branches or branches which are so close to the origin of the action that it isn't relevant to the game world except in it's local "community" (I'm using the term figuratively). If you want a bit of an illustration, I visualize branching-plot storylines the same way I see branching dialogue. There's no grey zone where you can leave things half-completed or move from one storyline to another.

But is that a weakness of the game or of the form?
Depends on what type of game you are making. If you are creating Fantasy Kingdom Simulator 2007 or Startopia 2 (please God please), a sandbox approach would be appropriate. When it comes to RPGs, the whole approach doesn't seem appropriate to me. I mean, I define "RPG" as "games like Fallout" so maybe that's a trivial conclusion to reach.

MMO's are the antithesis to a sandbox game. You can do whatever you like but nothing changes but your stat counter.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
4,566
Strap Yourselves In Codex+ Now Streaming!
"What's your preferred flavor of cRPG?"

Strawberry.

EDIT: Fuck, someone made that joke before, I guess it was just to obvious.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
I used to be a strawberry fanboi but recently I've taken a liking to peppermint. I don't eat ice cream often and peppermint is like a combination of strawberry and...er, peppermint. It's like getting more bang for your buck.
 

LCJr.

Erudite
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
2,469
Lord Chambers said:
Non-linear aka sandbox, go do what you want
This is even worse. People revel in their freedom to ignore the main quest (even when it's a fucking daedric invasion). I reject the notion that the main quest should even be thought of as a quest. To a lesser degree in any RPG since Diablo, but conspicuously so in Oblivion, the main quest is just simply a long side quest where characters claim it's really important. It reduces the quality of the quest and reduces the motivation factor for the player.



Linear w/open world i.e. pick up and leave the plot as you wish
I don't really understand what this means. I can't think of any games it really applies to since I'd rather lump all the sandbox games into the sandbox category.

Linear w/open world is what you're describing as non-linear. i.e. Daggerfal, Oblivion or the non-RPG Hardwar. There is an existing plot that can be ignored for as long as you like while you explore, trade, murder, steal, whatever. Then when you've had enough you jump back on the plotline and finish the game.

Pure sandbox would be no plot at all. Guess the best analogy would be a Sims-type game or something like Pirates!.
 

LCJr.

Erudite
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
2,469
Vault Dweller said:
Where is the "non-linear, but not a sandbox" option?

Good point. I can't edit the poll now that people have replied though. I was thinking of this type as linear w/open world but another category would probably be better.
 

FrancoTAU

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,507
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Ultima 7 is the best example of the main quest/plot where you can keep deviating off of and coming back

And some of yous are liars. I know a lot of you prefer linear RPGs with some side quest.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
Which ones? When I was in elementary school I was a big fan of those Goosebumps ones. I remember one very vividly, too. At the beginning I went into a dumpster after something some bullies threw in there and got eaten by a giant rat. I don't remember any of the rest of it, can any of you put a name to it for me?
 

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