What's your preferred flavor of cRPG?

[pinoy6600]

my favorite flavor of rpg is the 'choose your own adventure' book

ditto!

 

[Zomg]

You can vary in a single game. Darklands is sandbox until you cross a certain threshold, then becomes a game with a few semi-randomized plot triggers.

I think you fit the game and narrative to the method, rather than considering one style universally ideal. For example, the compartmentalized location style works well in Fallout, since the concept of mostly independent locations separated by desolation is an element of the setting. Trying the same thing with a tightly integrated setting like a single small town wouldn't work. If there were a Poseidon Adventure RPG, I wouldn't be very put off by a linear room A - room B - room C escape the water structure, but I'd balk at the same thing in a farm-boy-seeks-his-fortune plot.

 

[no]

I can't really pick an universally ideal style either. Every option has potential for being a good design, depending on the other elements of the game. Restricting oneself to one style feels rather limiting especially when, as Zomg said, a single game can have varying styles, even styles-inside-styles.

So, I'll pick the imaginary "A well executed sum of A, B, C and everything in-between in a variable order".

 

[sheek]

My preferred flavor of cRPG is big-titty Elf-maidens, friendly, talking dragons and metrosexual dwarfs.

 

[User was nabbed fit]

Linear w/open world, i.e. pick up and leave the plot as you wish. But I also want the ability to have "branching A, B then choose the C, D or X, Y path".

 

[Hazelnut]

The choose your own adventure books that I used to play/read were the Lone Wolf series by Joe Dever. Spent a lot of time with those when I was 11 ish. Still have them too! ;-)

I also had a few of the Steve Jackson ones (can't remember what they were called) but didn't really like them.

 

[sheek]

I also had a few of the Steve Jackson ones (can't remember what they were called) but didn't really like them.

'Fighting Fantasy' series. Ever play/read 'Creature of Havoc'?

 

[MacBone]

I've nothing against linear plots, but I love a game that lets me put together pieces of the story in my own way, like solving a murder or discovering an assassination plot. Games that have the D part of the quest locked until I complete A-B-C are frustrating to me.

 

[JarlFrank]

Mix between Linear with branching A,B then choose the C,D or X,Y path and Sandbox.
Think Arcanum.

The main quest should always have some kind of motivation behind it, like, "Heck I really need to solve this mystery now, this is really bugging me!", but there should also be enough stuff to do besides just linearly following the storyline. There should be plenty of chances to develop your character, not only in stats, but also in personality. All quests need to have different paths. Maybe not all, but most. Especially the mainquest. There needs to be a way to play an evil bastard, a good saint, a greedy bastard, a curious adventurer and so on. There should be no obligatory "good" quests, like, save these good people from the evil ones. Rather, give the chance to kill them off and then talk with the evil guys. And then, in the middle of the talk, begin a fight and kill them off.
With one word:
CHOICES!

 

[Elwro]

Even a mostly linear RPG can be great... but I still voted for the middle option.

 

[OSK]

I guess whatever you'd consider Fallout and Arcanum to be.

Though I think my ideal RPG would be a sandbox game where the world continues on with or without direct actions. Exile/Avernum III had something similar. You could choose to ignore the main quest all you wanted, but towns would be destroyed, NPCs killed, etc. You could always finish the game, but things may be more difficult.

 

[sabishii]

My ideal cRPG would be a sandbox game with a huge number of storylines (if not emergent) that are as fleshed out as the main plot in any linear cRPG. But I see most people voted "realistically" instead, and I understand, since no sandbox games have reached anywhere near this potential yet.

 

[RGE]

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).

You remind me of the oldest brother and the middle brother, who both rushed along only to fail at the end. Whereas the youngest brother kindly helped/saved every little beggar and critter he stumbled along, and then when he reached the end he got enough help from all those that he had helped that he was able to not only defeat the evil, but also save his two older brothers. So you don't want your RPG to be like a fairy tale I take it?

I agree that it is more than a bit stupid to encourage the PC to get sidetracked, but how could I possibly say no to something that I'm free to not do? At least with sidequests I can often decide when I want to do them. But it would be neat with an RPG where the sidequests are all important to the main quest, while still being voluntary. Not that I'm a big fan of main quests though. Perhaps because they often are things that I generally don't feel like doing. Or perhaps because actually doing them means that the game ends, which I wouldn't like if the game is good. Or perhaps it's because a main quest often feels too 'set up' rather than naturally grown from my interaction with the world.

 

[sheek]

Yeah, and to come back to the topic and be more prescise, plot-wise Arcanum is the kind of game I want (though I haven't finished it). Have hundreds of seemingly independent sub-plots some of which link back into each other and combine with other sub-plots to create new plot lines.

Don't think that's an option in the poll.

 

[Severian Silk]

Where is the "non-linear, but not a sandbox" option?

I agree. I wanted to vote for this one.

 

[Blacklung]

I truly agree with VD's idea. That of a kind of sandbox world where the main quest appears, but can be solved in many ways or hints and quests are picked up for it at almost any major location. I would add one other thing though. The world should change for the worse or the better depending on what you do, but still give you chances to go back and change that later on. It would have been wonderful to play Fallouts or Elderscrolls games where the enemies could actually successfully carry out their plans if the player did not follow the main quest. Cities could be seen to crumble or be taken over, with the possibility of the character going back to either join the evil or push it back and reclaim towns and rebuild them. That kind of living world, where there is no end and things are ever chaning, is best for roleplaying. In fact, it has been the main driving idea behind the first MMO's and even Morrowind and Oblivion...but, no one has successfully pulled it off yet.

 

[suibhne]

And it's worth pointing out that all of that is not a sandbox. What you're describing is a gameworld that actually has politics and history, unfolding as you act within it - sometimes in response to your actions, and sometimes in response to your non-actions (i.e., some events you may be able to alter, some events may proceed if you don't alter them, and some events may simply happen and force you to react).

Gothic 3 is interesting to examine in this regard, but it has a few significant problems: individual narratives (quests and larger storylines) are generally very simplistic, leading to a cast of very shallow characters throughout the gameworld; and there's no actual change in the gameworld that isn't brought about by the player (tho a lot of complicated stuff also occurred right before the player showed up). I'd like to see the same sort of approach melded with much more compelling characters and stories, plus large-scale, gameworld-altering events (potentially) unfolding over the course of time.

 

[Claw]

Ah, Lone Wolf. Those were great. I still remember one particularly cool enemy: A giant, decaying hand. I'd love to play a game with such a foe.

Where is the "non-linear, but not a sandbox" option?

I was going to say that. I hate you now.


Not really; but it was the coolest reply I could come up with.

I am not cool.

 

[made]

For me personally, the way the Ultima series handled it works best. Meaning an open world that is in its entirety accessible from the start, with a main quest to focus on if one so chose, but enough side quests and storylines to be distracted from the main plot and following an own agenda.

Some areas could be "blocked" by initially too high level monsters if neccessary to prevent finishing the game in a few hours (minutes), but I dislike the "unlocking" of areas in the course of a game, because in reality they are there no matter what and should be at least possible to discover without the plot requiring it. The world should function on its own (or give the illusion thereof) rather than implying that everything is a consequence of the PC's actions.

Ideally, the player would have the choice to handle the main quest in different ways, such as betraying the initial quest giver, siding with the "bad" guys, or just abandoning it and facing the consequences of his apathy. Of course this was never an option for the Avatar, him being the Avatar and all.

Coming to think of it, Morrowind and Oblivion had, in theory, much the same approach, although a bland world and bad design decisions, mainly in the latter case, turned what was a promising idea into the pile of crap we were eventually served.

 

[Fez]

The Gothics had a similar way of doing things too. There were a couple of places you could "unlock", but it fitted the story context and many of the other areas could be explored early on if it wasn't for the monsters there to crush you.

 

[JarlFrank]

The Gothics had a similar way of doing things too. There were a couple of places you could "unlock", but it fitted the story context and many of the other areas could be explored early on if it wasn't for the monsters there to crush you.

Yeah, like the forest in G2. When that orc came and killed me, I didn't return until I reached a few levels. Very good game design.

 

[Fez]

It feels a lot more satisfying than the "invisible walls" strategy that some other games use. Natural or at least sensible and logical barriers are the best.

 

[JarlFrank]

It feels a lot more satisfying than the "invisible walls" strategy that some other games use. Natural or at least sensible and logical barriers are the best.

And a LOT better than Oblivion's system of levelling every enemy to fit to the players level.
Morrowind did this much better, IMHO, although it was not perfect. When I went to a certain area and got pwned I knew that I should get back. In Oblivion... well, finish the whole game without leveling up once is possible.

Another good example is Arcanum.You can't reach the Glimmering Forest before knowing where the mountain pass is. And you could indeed find it if you didn't use fast travel but searched for it manually. But nobody would be that crazy and do this.

 

[made]

Morrowind did this much better, IMHO, although it was not perfect.

To be honest, while playing Morrowind I wasn't even aware that it had level scaling as I hadn't followed any of the pre-release information or reviews, until I read that it was possible to complete the main quest with a lvl 1 char by levitating to a couple locations and slaying Dagoth Ur in a matter of a few minutes. Something went terribly wrong in the design department when things like that are possible.

 

[Fez]

I hate the levelling system for the monsters in Oblivion. It's a terrible element for me and ruins much of the fun and immersion of exploring the game. I liked that in Fallout if you went west into the wasteland you got spanked hard, but you still had the freedom to do so. If you went back to a town after getting some good equipment and levelling up you could wipe out the smug citizens who annoyed you before. There's degrees of difficulty and a real sense of achievement and development in cases like that, but if it is always kept at a mediocre level there isn't the same variation and it seems all the more dull. Why bother levelling up if everyone keeps at the same pace and you can't pull ahead or fall behind? There's also the silliness of every day bandits wearing legendary and rare armor that is worth a fortune when you are high-level and treasure chests at the bottom of some epic dungeon that contain worthless crap when you are low-level. It'd be nice to be able to do something clever and get treasure out of a dungeon you weren't really strong enough to get otherwise and feel good about it, like in Gothic when you best some Orc when you are low-level or run like a madman past minecrawlers to grab some loot in a mine and then run back out.

What is important is that the barriers seem "fair" and that they fit the rules as we understand them in the game and life. Not knowing where something is and needing directions to find it easily like in Arcanum was fair so it didn't bother me either.