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.

Eternity Pillars of Eternity II Beta Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

Self-Ejected

Sacred82

Self-Ejected
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
2,957
Location
Free Village
Aside from no death/resurrection, there’s a lot that’s kind of brilliant.

Except you are getting resurrected

From the very start, MCA encourages you to treat dialogue as exploration. Talking to the zombies and other weird denizens of the morgue rewards you with cool items and abilities and stat boosts and recovered memories, which give you lots of experience. It sets up a powerful incentive to actually read everything. My first playthough I didn’t talk to Deonarra thoroughly enough, so I didn’t get the resurrect power, which made managing my companions a lot harder.

In a book, you also have a powerful incentive to actually read everything. I mean, I feel they really underused the branching dialogue, which is a basic problem. They underemphasized reactivity, which should be paramount in this type of game, as it forces you to read everything even more carefully, and instead simply went full retard on the text bloat. Granted, after replaying some of PS:T recently, it's not nearly as verbose as I perceived it to be as a teen, it's just that people back then were already used to the 1 line disposition of NPC's in Black Isle games, and you could actually rapid fire click through the dialogue. Still, I'd rather they'd have kept the one liner structure and instead emphasized reactivity. I mean, writing and implementation issues aside, that would have made the game actually great and deflected 75% of the criticism. You wouldn't even need combat in such a game. Think an entire game of Fallout dialogue, how fucking cool would that have been.

As for the game we actually have rather than the one we'd wish for, I found stat checks in dialogue kind of cool, but the game didn't play out entirely differently enough depending on build IME. If you have lousy WIS you're just losing out on a lot of good stuff, both writing and item wise, and everything else plays out kind of the same.
 

Sannom

Augur
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
944
yYAWSr2.png
What is the meaning of this? Are you a Steven Universe fan?
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
you have it in a CYOA tho
Ok, the main reason why PS:T is remembered so fondly is because it used a clever narrative premisse that it was breath of fresh air compared to the garden variety of cRPGs , and integrated this with the game world, the NPCs, etc. You are right, a game from another genre could have done this, but this doesn’t diminish its accomplishment, and it doesn’t make it less interesting because of it. If it had better combat, etc., it would be even better.
 
Self-Ejected

CptMace

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
1,278
Location
Die große Nation
My whole argument is that P1's writing is average, compared to the general standard in RPGs.
It’s only average if you assume that writing in cRPGs should be evaluated by the same metric of writing in novels, etc. You consider the total amount of available written text in the story and the dialogues and compare this with the story and dialogues of the average cRPG.


That’s a wrong angle, because it’s a completely different medium. Rather, “the writing” in a cRPG should be evaluated by the quality of the quests, the exploration and a bunch of other things that simply are not written text. Level-design, C&C, itemization are all integral to writing. When you consider things this way, it’s obvious that PoE is way worse than some cRPGs with generic story that have better combat, exploration, etc.

The so called "cRPG writers that are flooding the genre with insufferable lore dumps and colourful prose filled with adjectives to the brim also ignore this basic notion that the good cRPG writer is nothing more than the good developer.

I wholeheartedly agree that the specificity of the medium should always be considered when judging writing in crpgs. Yet, I think it's kind of too much to consider that the purely literary aspect of it, like the tone, the vocabulary, the style etc should be systematically discarded. Same for the story, the narration and all the traditional form of the literary expression.
Also you seem to mix writing and design, I don't understand what itemisation and combat have to do with writing here. Even by stretching the notion of writing to its broader definition, it seems that these mostly, if not only, have to do with design.

I mean, there's really no need to play with the definition of writing to dispute the idea that poe's writing isn't bad. A simple look at the dialogues (not even by their c&c but simply by their literary aspect) should give enough arguments to demonstrate that it's p.bad for this industry. Like, bethesda-level of lack of characterisation (which impacts the game experience, as you've noted).

I claim the right to say that Tales of Maj'Eyal has good writing, even if I would strictly be talking about its dialogues and bits of lore. It's just well written and enjoyable to read. Like the difference of tone and vocabulary between 200iq alchemists and dumbfuck fighters. It's almost nothing, yeah, but it's there, and the fact they put some effort and love into that when hey could have produced purely serviceable stuff is to be noted and encouraged.

I am sure Infinitron is sniffing around to censor and/or ridicule me for some flimsy excuse. Fucking Zionists who control the media are all the same.

I was right! Look at my new tag everyone.
You sure it's not about your incomprehensible agression of MCA in his own thread ?
Not that your gibberish here was not already enough, mind you. Feels like you actively tried to get a tag, wear it proudly.
 
Last edited:

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,083
Location
Bulgaria
My whole argument is that P1's writing is average, compared to the general standard in RPGs.
It’s only average if you assume that writing in cRPGs should be evaluated by the same metric of writing in novels, etc. You consider the total amount of available written text in the story and the dialogues and compare this with the story and dialogues of the average cRPG.


That’s a wrong angle, because it’s a completely different medium. Rather, “the writing” in a cRPG should be evaluated by the quality of the quests, the exploration and a bunch of other things that simply are not written text. Level-design, C&C, itemization are all integral to writing. When you consider things this way, it’s obvious that PoE is way worse than some cRPGs with generic story that have better combat, exploration, etc.

The so called "cRPG writers that are flooding the genre with insufferable lore dumps and colourful prose filled with adjectives to the brim also ignore this basic notion that the good cRPG writer is nothing more than the good developer.

I wholeheartedly agree that the specificity of the medium should always be considered when judging writing in crpgs. Yet, I think it's kind of too much to consider that the purely literary aspect of it, like the tone, the vocabulary, the style etc should be systematically discarded. Same for the story, the narration and all the traditional form of the literary expression.
Also you seem to mix writing and design, I don't understand what itemisation and combat have to do with writing here. Even by stretching the notion of writing to its broader definition, it seems that these mostly, if not only, have to do with design.

From what gathered he is seeing the writing as one person creating his vision and writing the world,the lore,the level design and why it looks like that,the items and what role they take in the world. Which i kind of agree with him if the game was made around one man's vision and imagination. But sadly games are created by a lot of people,of which one have some imagination and creativity and he is the janitor. Good writing have a lot of backstage writing about all the things in the world and how they fit. You could even say that the level design is in a way writing in some games. An example for this are the Spiderweb games,when you enter a dungeon it feels really realistic,there are bedroom,kitchens dark alters that need purging,armoury and all the needed things.

It is amusingly ironical that he kind of sees the writing as in a book. Where one one vision shapes the whole thing.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
I wholeheartedly agree that the specificity of the medium should always be considered when judging writing in crpgs. Yet, I think it's kind of too much to consider that the purely literary aspect of it, like the tone, the vocabulary, the style etc should be systematically discarded. Same for the story, the narration and all the traditional form of the literary expression.
I’m not saying that’s completely irrelevant, it’s just less important than what is usually assumed, or at least it is not the whole aspect of writing. But even in that particular aspect, it’s not obvious what should be the proper style for cRPGs, for instance, should a cyber-punk cRPG have a different style than a fantasy cRPG? Or maybe they should employ the same style with different slangs, etc. The choice of style is not just an arbitrary convention, but is based on intelectual assumptions about the type of relation involved between the speaker/writer and the audience/reader. For instance, a dry cleaner operating manual has a completely different style than the one employed in a weeding speech, or the one employed in a scientific paper—read "Clear and Simple as the Truth" for an illuminating discussion about the nature and role of styles. I enjoy the classic style explained in this book, and therefore I enjoyed it in “Age of Decadence”. Other people prefer post-modern prose, which I find intolerable. The irony is that when developers are just trying to make a generic game with good combat without any pretense of literary depth, I will not have to endure these deranged insufferable styles. In fact, a more generic unpretentious cRPG with less convoluted prose with better written in the sense that it doesn’t contain the exposition of pretentious gibberish in purple prose.

Also you seem to mix writing and design, I don't understand what itemisation and combat have to do with writing here. Even by stretching the notion of writing to its broader definition, it seems that these mostly, if not only, have to do with design.
Because they are also tied to the game world. Does it make sense that in BG2 you can find Lilarcor, the enchanted talking sword in a sewer? Not, it is idiotic. The developers didn’t though too much about how implausible this sounds and just placed it there, with a quest. This is bad writing. Does it makes sense that you have to face a bunch of copy-pasted enemies in an empty map just to keep the juices flowing? No, these are trash mobs implemented to keep the player busy doing repetitive and menial shit. The game world shouldn’t be like this. In other words, bad writing.

mean, there's really no need to play with the definition of writing to dispute the idea that poe's writing isn't bad. A simple look at the dialogues (not even by their c&c but simply by their literary aspect) should give enough arguments to demonstrate that it's p.bad for this industry. Like, bethesda-level of lack of characterisation (which impacts the game experience, as you've noted).
That depends. Some items have normal descriptions, others are obviously rushed and uninspired. The quality of the prose varies throughout the game, but it is definitely better than, let’s say, DO:S.
 
Last edited:

AwesomeButton

Proud owner of BG 3: Day of Swen's Tentacle
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
16,152
Location
At large
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
You people baffle me. Good writing in cRPGs is not the same thing as good writing in other mediums.
No need to explain this to me. To quote from the same post again:

It's tough to compare good writing in a book/movie with good writing in a role playing game, because obviously, the reader or viewer has no agency, while the player in an RPG has a large degree of agency. So what you call "yearning to turn the next page" could translate for an RPG as yearning to keep playing and progressing towards completing the quest you are currently on, or achieving whatever goal you have set for yourself right now.

What is the meaning of this? Are you a Steven Universe fan?
This is an example of what I call Below Average Writing. I can give a huge number of examples of clumsy language or purple prose. Roxor wrote an article about those things and it was pretty spot-on.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623

I understand what it says, but I wonder if there was an easier way to describe it. One way or another, the problem is not so much the wording as the importance of words: is ANY part of that description important? For instance, can you find gem-worthy quality Peridots in the game? I personally would have made it like so:
- Peridot: a pale green stone. Very common. Alternatively, if you want more purple prose: a pale green stone of common occurrence.
- High Quality Peridot: a beautful pale green stone. Used in jewelry.
- Virgo Peridot: thicc af pornstar.
And that's it. Concise description. I know which one to get rid of and which one to keep. If the lore surrounding an item has no bearing whatsoever in the game, then either a) Make it interesting and cool, b) Make it say something about the world, or c) Remove it. I don't need to know the lore behind a stone if it has no gameplay impact and no other NPC gives a shit about the stone in question.

IMO, the order goes:

1. Is it important/useful/interesting?
2. Is it worded well?

I don't care how well worded it is if I have no use for it.
 
Last edited:

Sizzle

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
2,471
Whats the problem here contradiction or poor wording?? Im not native english speaker.

It's not exactly a contradiction, but it is a common example of poor writing.

Full of adverbs, confusing sentence construction, and, worst of all - just not that interesting - it's the kind of prose that seems like something you would write in a hurry, but it would never get past the editor looking like that.
 

Brancaleone

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
1,004
Location
Norcia
Whats the problem here contradiction or poor wording?? Im not native english speaker.

It's not exactly a contradiction, but it is a common example of poor writing.

Full of adverbs, confusing sentence construction, and, worst of all - just not that interesting - it's the kind of prose that seems like something you would write in a hurry, but it would never get past the editor looking like that.
Plus repetitions ("easy to find, but difficult to find"), all coupled with the absolutely fascinating information that exceptional specimens of it are difficult to find, duh.

Not bad at all for such a short text.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
You'd word it like a Wikipedia-article?

BOY-EEE WE'RE REALLY DISSECTING AND DEEP ANALYSING THIS SHIT NOW BROS BUT WE CAN GO DEEPER HOW ABOUT THIS FOR SHITTY WRITING

ROyVTQo.png


preeeety sure there's a comma missing between accumulated and miscellaneous there who wrote this fucking six year olds AMIREEEEEEP brrooos #gameanalysis #writinganalysis #blessed
 
Self-Ejected

CptMace

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
1,278
Location
Die große Nation
Because they are also tied to the game world. Does it make sense that you can find Lilarcor, the enchanted talking sword in a sewer? Not, it is idiotic. The developers didn’t though too much about how implausible this sounds and just placed it there, with a quest. This is bad writing. Does it makes sense that you have to face a bunch of copy-pasted enemies in an empty map just to keep the juices flowing? No, these are trash mobs implemented to keep the player busy doing repetitive and menial shit. The game world shouldn’t be like this. In other words, bad writing.
Alright, I see what you mean, and that's where I disagree.

I mean, it really echoes with how Sizzle said you are an elitist.
It's fine to expect any degree of attention to how game design and story/narration/characters (traditional elements of writing, basically) interact within any crpg of any subgenre. But you need to give an explicit framework of analysis, one that a lot of people have to agree with. Yet they won't agree with your reference framework here for various reasons : the main one remains that in reality, when studying cases of actual game design, this doesn't reflect how most games are made. This is the case for BGII, during the development of which I'm fairly certain no one at bioware considered itemisation to be a matter of writing.
I doubt that, in most cases, people would agree to link combat, encounters, itemisation and game systems with writing.

When it comes to writing, the reference framework that a lot of people share (and which isn't the one you use) tends to a more classical approach to writing. Ie : in a game like icewind dale, I can perfectly tolerate the writing as a narrative tool (dialogues, chapter monologues) that gives context to the gameplay (dungeon crawling) and a linear story with no other regards to stuff like why undeads wield fine weapons in the valley of shadows, and I'd say the writing is fine. You would however, and righfully so considering your framework of reference, would defend that it has poor, or maybe extremely bland, writing. But that's going with your elitist reference framework.

How are we to discuss with someone if we don't share the same benchmarks to begin with, even more so if we don't even define writing the same way ?
Hence why he calls you an elitist. You use a reference framework than only a few people here would use to talk about writing. So everytime you talk about something as trivial a concept as writing, you go through the process of giving your definition, which obviously makes the whole conversation difficult, because nobody knows what the heck we're talking about anymore.



Going back to my reaction : I disagree about finding Lilarcor in the sewers being a problem of writing. For me, it's a problem of game design. As in, they designed itemisation in a very traditional hack n slash fashion (the player collects magical stuff through adventuring), then they designed the items, and it looks like they didn't give two fucks about what item goes where or why. I mean, it's a bit odd to deem this a problem of writing if the designers themselves wouldn't consider it through the writing or world-building perspective to begin with.
Now, hey, I think it'd make more sense to directly criticise their approach of the world-building from the get-go, and acknowledge that Lilarcor's presence in the sewers has nothing to do with BGII's writing process but rather with its game design process, instead of coming to the weird conclusion that the game has poor writing based on this specific example.

You can't just debate on notions if you're the only to agree with their definition.
Mind you, I want to be clear on this : I too consider pst's game design to be exceptionally good regarding the specificity of the medium, something I wish more game designers, even outside of crpg, would take care of. And it's perfectly fine to expect games to tend towards this type of design, and to criticise them on this ground. I'm all for it.
But if, it's the case here and for a shit tonne of games, that's just not the design intention, well too bad but it's really not productive to shift the framework in a way that doesn't coincide with the game we'd analyse. Meaning, there are other ways to treat writing in video games, and also it's fine to consider them absolutely and always inferior (I wouldn't though), it doesn't constitute a sufficient reason to go full ostrich and pretend it's fine to judge everything by standards that don't actually fit.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623
You'd word it like a Wikipedia-article?

BOY-EEE WE'RE REALLY DISSECTING AND DEEP ANALYSING THIS SHIT NOW BROS BUT WE CAN GO DEEPER HOW ABOUT THIS FOR SHITTY WRITING

ROyVTQo.png


preeeety sure there's a comma missing between accumulated and miscellaneous there who wrote this fucking six year olds AMIREEEEEEP brrooos #gameanalysis #writinganalysis #blessed

My only issue is the first sentence. I would have worded it: "Lore represents a character's accumulated knowledge about miscellaneous topics, often of occult or esoteric nature".
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
you are an elitist
It’s a depressing sign of our times that words like “elitist” are thrown around as insults. Everyone have their own criterion of standards. The ones that excel in these standards are the best, the elite. If defending the very best is frown upon, something is wrong.

But you need to give an explicit framework of analysis, one that a lot of people have to agree with.
No, I have to support my conclusion with reasons, which includes a framework of analysis. If the person who disagrees with me does not find this framework plausible, he will have do provide reasons to sustain this position, etc. Saying you don’t like X is not a reason against X.

the main one remains that in reality, when studying cases of actual game design, this doesn't reflect how most games are made. This is the case for BGII, during the development of which I'm fairly certain no one at bioware considered itemisation to be a matter of writing. I doubt that, in most cases, people would agree to link combat, encounters, itemisation and game systems with writing.
You are inferring a conclusion about how writing should be evaluated based on what most players want. That’s an ad populum fallacy. I could just as well use this line of reasoning to maintain that Bioware’s recent games are better than BGs, because that’s what most gamers want. The taste of most gamers is irrelevant, because this is an abstract discussion that involves concepts and the very nature of writing, style, etc.

When it comes to writing, the reference framework that a lot of people share (and which isn't the one you use) tends to a more classical approach to writing. Ie : in a game like icewind dale, I can perfectly tolerate the writing as a narrative tool (dialogues, chapter monologues) that gives context to the gameplay (dungeon crawling) and a linear story with no other regards to stuff like why undeads wield fine weapons in the valley of shadows, and I'd say the writing is fine. You would however, and righfully so considering your framework of reference, would defend that it has poor, or maybe extremely bland, writing. But that's going with your elitist reference framework.

I can tolerate a lot of things I don’t like given the proper incentives. I don’t have huge expectations about writing in cRPGs, and I certainly don’t expect any cRPG writer to ever use classic style, because this style is so hard to master and requires a particular mindset.

How are we to discuss with someone if we don't share the same benchmarks to begin with, even more so if we don't even define writing the same way?

You engage in a discussion about the benchmarks and offer your reasons to maintain your position, of course. It’s not as if this was a relativist shit show where anything goes and you can’t criticise people’s preferences because they are dogmatic and butthurt, or don’t like to read books about the topics they are discussing.

So every time you talk about something as trivial a concept as writing, you go through the process of giving your definition, which obviously makes the whole conversation difficult, because nobody knows what the heck we're talking about anymore.
First, the concept of writing is anything but trivial. The many posts about this topic in this and other threads attest this fact. Second, it is absurd to accuse someone of making things difficult because he is trying to be more rigorous and precise, and using conceptual analysis instead of indulging in verbal disputes and insults. It’s a complete inversion of values. In fact, it is a projection.

it looks like they didn't give two fucks about what item goes where or why. I mean, it's a bit odd to deem this a problem of writing if the designers themselves wouldn't consider it through the writing or world-building perspective to begin with.
So if the developers decided that it was a good idea, then it is good? But that logic, developers never make mistakes and never have bad writing, since they are the ones who call the shots. What matters is whether it makes sense or not. It does not. It’s idiotic. Saying that this does not matter because developers wanted will not make the problem go away.

Now, hey, I think it'd make more sense to directly criticise their approach of the world-building from the get-go, and acknowledge that Lilarcor's presence in the sewers has nothing to do with BGII's writing process but rather with its game design process, instead of coming to the weird conclusion that the game has poor writing based on this specific example.
Yet, the main lesson about this discussion is that game writing is undissociated from game design, which includes itemization.

You can't just debate on notions if you're the only to agree with their definition.
You can. You can define X as A and me as B, but I can criticise the inferences you made from A. You can also move the discussion to the definition instead of magically assuming that it’s all relative. But that’s assuming that the person is actually interested in really discussing these subjects in the first place.

But if, it's the case here and for a shit tonne of games, that's just not the design intention, well too bad but it's really not productive to shift the framework in a way that doesn't coincide with the game we'd analyse.
You are assuming that the standards of evaluation should be determined by the developer’s intention, but you didn’t provide any reasons to support this conclusion. You are also assuming that the developers behind BG2 don’t share these standards, because they failed these standards, but people can have a certain standards and fail in them. The idea that good writing standards does not apply to a certain game because the developer didn’t care about such standards is nonsensical. It seems like a farfetched relativist excuse to defend what is impossible to defend.
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

CptMace

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
1,278
Location
Die große Nation
It’s a depressing sign of our times that words like “elitist” are thrown around as insults. Everyone have their own criterion of standards. The ones that excel in these standards are the best, the elite. If defending the very best is frown upon, something is wrong.
Second, it is absurd to accuse someone of making things difficult because he is trying to be more rigorous and precise, and using conceptual analysis instead of indulging in verbal disputes and insults.

I never meant to use the word elitist as an insult. I frankly don't understand how you took it that way.

I do think the developer's intention is important, yeah. The game failing to do something it didn't try to achieve is nonsensical. And you see things this way precisely because you've set yourself a framework based on another type of game design.
Again, expecting writing to tie with gameplay in most or all its forms is a legitimate stance. But when we're in front of a game where it was obviously not the goal, maybe it'd be better to just analyze writing for what it is : a somewhat loose excuse for the actual gameplay, through the story, dialogues etc. I don't understand how it's a relativist approach, it's just common sense.
As an example : when I criticize poe's writing, I look at how npcs are poorly, or not at all, characterized because of how dialogues are written. I can't bring myself to criticize the fact that a pack of trash mobs is composed of ogres and oozes with absolutely no reason for these creatures to get along. And yet again, yes : it's a legitimate complain. I just don't understand how it would be considered a matter of writing and not of design.

My bad for the poor choice of words : I didn't mean to say that writing is trivial. I meant to say that, usually, defining the notion of writing is a trivial matter.

Overall it reads like you took my post as an attack of sorts, so I apologize for the impression it gave. I was merely discussing why I label as "design" the things you label as "writing".
And to put it into perspective, I originally reacted to your post stating that talking about the literary form and traditional use of writing in games was the wrong angle to talk about the matter. I think it's fine an angle, really.
 
Last edited:

2house2fly

Magister
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
1,877
My issue with the peridot description is that there's really no need for it to be there. Even if I don't know what a peridot is, I can see from the picture that it's a dull green gemstone. The description doesn't communicate anything to me as a player, isn't entertaining to read, and as an in-universe piece of writing it doesn't say anything about the setting. Whoever wrote it wasted their time
 

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,083
Location
Bulgaria
Reading all this screenshot i feel amused. Maybe Obsidian should hire me as a writer,would deliver the same quantity of grammar mistakes,but at least it will be interesting writing.
My definition of lore would be something like this: "Lore is something that you google instead of wasting my time explaining a simple word to a dumbfucks!What is wrong with you people,why would you buy a text heavy game when you don't even know what lore is?"
 

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