C&C in most games... too easy?

[Mareus]

I really don't like it when the game forces you to change roles.

 

[Korgan]

Actually I kind of think his first step - the one where his initial companions (the archmage girl and the paladin mentor from WC2) abandon him - was completely justified. He had a village full of infected peasants who were about to turn into an undead army with a dual purpose of attacking the kingdom and spreading the plague further. There was no cure for the plague available, and from his perspective no way of knowing who was infected, who isn't, and who might become infected. Pretty much all he could do was kill them all, which then brutalised him and prepared him for his later corruption in Northrend (burning the boats so his troops couldn't flee, turning on the mercs that helped him, and eventually taking the cursed sword)

Yeah, exactly. His actions were justified in that situation, but they fucked him up.

 

[Texas Red]

The problem is obviously your character becoming insanely rich very quickly. The solution would be provision, for example. You have to spend those 3 revolvers you just found
on water and food which would, ideally, automatically decrease from you inventory. If you don't have enough food, your stats will go down until you can eat something. This way there is a bigger drive to get a better gun. It's much more difficult and even in the ending cities you have to do some quests to afford the baddest gun. You would really want to kill those raiders in a cave just so you could survive..

I thought the Witcher was certainly a step towards the right direction, but I thought that - story-wise - there was an obvious adjustment that would have made the order/elves C+C that much more interesting. The first 'nice-guy' character you meet in the game, early in chapter 2, is the archetypal paladin character - I forget his name, but if you've played it you know who I mean. He's a genuine good guy in a questionable but potentially good organisation. As a consequence, I suspect many players (of those who got caught up in the story) chose the Order out of 'loyalty' to him. Similarly, I suspect that those who chose the rebels did so because they sympathised with the hard-but-understandably-so rebel leader you meet later that chapter more than they did the good-but-naive paladin. Now...imagine that early in Act 4 (or late Act 3) the game killed off one or both of those characters. So you've been going with the order because of one good hero, (or the rebels, substitute accordingly), and then just before things are set to really heat up, that 'good face' of the organisation dies and you're left thinking 'do I really want to be with these guys after all'. Maybe a bit emo-faggy, but I think that, story-line-wise, that would have been a great C+C.

He was an archetype paladin done good. He isn't all nice and pancy, he ends up slaughtering nonhumans with the aid of unwillingly mutated people for his religion. I liked the elf leader more even though he thought that humans can only understand violence because they're too dumb for the sophisticated elven ways.

 

[RGE]

1. No Scaled Loot. None. Rewards are static. You see a guard with a sniper rifle. Kill him and you get it. It's hard as fuck though.

It's not hard as fuck when the PC has all the initiative and can reload the game if the attempt fails. In Arcanum it's particularly easy to use fate points to steal any weapon you might take a fancy to.

One of the strangest things in games, especially RPGs, is how easy it is to be the good guy. In fact, it's usually the best path; the path with the coolest loot, the best quests, more party choices, and the easiest aside from maybe fighting some big special evil dude. Contrast this with the less-than-saintly paths in which the game gives you minimal quality loot, only a few extra quests, less party members who will like you, and generally a more pain-in-the-ass experience.

Indeed. I recently became the enemy of both Tarant and Caladon, and killing all those guards and citizens was really, really boring. And I just missed out on a bunch of Thieves' Underworld quests too, because while the field agents seem to have their own faction, separate from the towns, that does not seem to apply to the management. Oh well, it's a change from how I played the first time.

If games are going to stick to a good/evil dichotomy, they should at least differentiate the paths a bit as opposed to just offering different flavors of the same reward. Perhaps have the more altruistically inclined characters receive friendship and allies as rewards yet lack money and loot while the greedier, more self-centered characters get the typical power and wealth type of rewards, but might have to always watch their back and/or trust no-one.

I agree. If players will go to extremes to keep Dogmeat alive, why not use such feelings as an incentive instead of appealing to greed for doing good deeds? And then everyone would get what they want.

I'd really like to see a game that was balls to the walls difficult and beat the player down at every angle. Except there would be a way to make things easier....by being a completely heartless bastard.

Yep. If it's good enough for Star Wars, why not good enough for RPGs? Or is it just that I'm not evil enough to enjoy slaughtering innocent NPCs? No... the rewards are still crap. Well, except maybe for that friendly mage guy in Baldur's Gate. I remember once attacking him with a beginner party, and actually defeating him despite his powerful magic. Though too many party members died, so I reloaded and failed to do better. He did have some nice things, so I guess that's kind of a reward for being a bastard.

CRPGs really ought to make decisions of their own, ones that exhibit a kind of personality and style. That would result in collaboration. So instead of the game reacting exclusively to the player's decisions, the player would be reacting to the game's as well.

Emergent gameplay? Or isn't the script already the game's 'decision'? Or should we have alternatives like in The Witcher, but instead of the player initiating them, they'll be randomly determined at the start of the game? So that there's a 50% chance of the master thief being the secret leader of the thieves' guild, and a 50% chance of being the most notorious enemy/competitor of that same guild? And perhaps no matter which it is, rumours will always claim the latter?

 

[Squeek]

CRPGs really ought to make decisions of their own, ones that exhibit a kind of personality and style. That would result in collaboration. So instead of the game reacting exclusively to the player's decisions, the player would be reacting to the game's as well.

Emergent gameplay? Or isn't the script already the game's 'decision'? Or should we have alternatives like in The Witcher, but instead of the player initiating them, they'll be randomly determined at the start of the game? So that there's a 50% chance of the master thief being the secret leader of the thieves' guild, and a 50% chance of being the most notorious enemy/competitor of that same guild? And perhaps no matter which it is, rumours will always claim the latter?

I'm simply suggesting that RPG is one of those things that's done better with collaboration. The way I see it, RPG without it is limited.

For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation. Or dancing -- who really prefers to get up and do it alone? I'm saying players are really looking for collaboration, and in a single-player game the only source for that is the game itself.

The script isn't what's standing in the way of that. It's that RPGs are designed for a single version. But what do fans do? If it's good, they turn around and modify it. Why? To enhance the experience.

IMO, the folks who design these games really ought to create them in multiple versions that could be mixed and matched at the descretion of the game -- not the player's, and not just at the beginning. Versions could be designed modularly and redundantly to accommodate an entire gamut of possibilities to correspond with choices the player makes every step of the way.

It there were collaboration, then there would also be potential for flair. Software that could participate in decision-making could do it with personality and style. Those could even be player options.

 

[RK47]

It's not hard as fuck when the PC has all the initiative and can reload the game if the attempt fails. In Arcanum it's particularly easy to use fate points to steal any weapon you might take a fancy to.

if that gamer doesn't like failures, then he has every right to reload. he paid for your game. unless you want to enforce no save games. Pickpocketing something people held in their hands is complete bullshit. Especially if this is a rifle. Fate point is a silly feature.

 

[DraQ]

For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.

Or rape.

 

[Korgan]

For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.

Or rape.

Um, so your point is, you can't get the best if you collaborate?

 

[DraQ]

For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.

Or rape.

Um, so your point is, you can't get the best if you collaborate?

I'm just trying to be completist (and lure Major_Blackhart here).

 

[RGE]

For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.

Yes, that is what singleplayer CRPGs are compared to multiplayer RPGs.

Versions could be designed modularly and redundantly to accommodate an entire gamut of possibilities to correspond with choices the player makes every step of the way.

Isn't this what C&C is about, with each consequence being a 'version'? If the game 'makes a decision' based on something the player did, it's a consequence, whether it's scripted or emergent gameplay. If the game 'makes a decision' that's not a consequence of something the player did, then isn't that too either in a script or emergent? Or based on a random chance? I'm just trying to understand what it is you're thinking about.

It there were collaboration, then there would also be potential for flair. Software that could participate in decision-making could do it with personality and style. Those could even be player options.

Are you wishing for an actual AI? It sounds as if you are.

Pickpocketing something people held in their hands is complete bullshit. Especially if this is a rifle. Fate point is a silly feature.

Sure, but even in Fallout you can just walk up to a guard (unless it's an enemy who'll attack on sight) and initiate combat when you feel that you have a decent chance to win based on preparations against this particular guard. Granted, you'll end up fighting an entire settlement, but isn't that just a way to quickly try out your new sniper rifle?

My point is that it's not necessarily hard as fuck to liberate powerful items from NPCs, because NPCs are mostly too passive to properly defend themselves against backstabbing. Then again, the opportunity to stab someone in the back by unloading two bursts in their front is what makes an RPG feel open ended, isn't it? :wink:

 

[Squeek]

Isn't this what C&C is about, with each consequence being a 'version'? ... I'm just trying to understand what it is you're thinking about.

I'm talking about fundamental changes that could go beyond plot. For instance, when a mod is installed over a game, it modifies the version (hence the term "mod").

Some games, Morrowind for example, get replayed over and over, mostly in a variety of versions other than the original one. It's collaboration, but in super-slow motion. All the work is done -- and all the choices are made -- entirely by fans.

If developers embraced that effort themselves, they could create games in varieties. And since their product is software,it could be made to participate in decision-making. With the right design, it could evaluate a player's decisions and maybe even his style and then react to them.

Choices and Consequences would work in two directions instead of just one. Like sex. Like dancing. It would be a sort of collaboration, and it would be better, IMO.

 

[Dark Elf]

I maintain that true choices and consequences are dependent on a hardcore setting. If every little thing you do stays done and there's no save/reload option there to save you, chances are that developers flesh out the consequences a bit more.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I maintain that true choices and consequences are dependent on a hardcore setting. If every little thing you do stays done and there's no save/reload option there to save you, chances are that developers flesh out the consequences a bit more.

After reading this post, I've actually had this thought that The Witcher has done it extremely well, which wasn't mentioned in this thread yet.

What I mean is, that all the consequences are not happening until a long time passes, which effectively takes out the "boooo, I don't like the reward *reload* ", while also avoiding 'hardcore' settings and lack of save/load, so basically, you do something at point x, and then, at point y (2 chapters later) you are like "shit... I shouldn't have done that at x".

 

[Dark Elf]

... which means I have to play the Witcher then.

 

[Squeek]

I maintain that true choices and consequences are dependent on a hardcore setting. If every little thing you do stays done and there's no save/reload option there to save you, chances are that developers flesh out the consequences a bit more.

If an RPG could react to a player by making fundamental changes in the game, then you would get exactly that. There could be no reloading, because the save would be for a different version.

I agree with the sentiment a lot of folks here have already expressed, that this genre is at a crossroads, and that C&C is right at the crux of it. Things are getting both better and worse at a time when the majority of fans are abandoning single-player for World of Warcraft. We all see what's wrong, but technical and business realities obscure ideas about how to solve it.

For a lot of obvious reasons, single-player CRPG designers really ought to compete for WoW's customers, chief among them being they're willing to pay a monthly fee for server access. They should offer access to servers of their own. But instead of hosting client-server applications (multiplayer), theirs could function like Dungeon Masters by offering collaboration, including content that could change their single-player games in a myriad of ways, altering their versions (not merely adding to them).

That would earn them a lot more money, enabling them to create much better games. Since they would be changing enigmatically, the worlds they would create would seem much more alive than worlds in any multi-player applications (since their client-server architecture restricts them to a single version).

Choices and Consequence would be put on steroids. Collaborative CRPGs would be so much better than any stand-alone version that piracy would probably be viewed as nothing more than a free sample. The choices and consequences in any single version would pale in comparison to the potential of ones in a dynamic game world.

 

[DraQ]

I maintain that true choices and consequences are dependent on a hardcore setting. If every little thing you do stays done and there's no save/reload option there to save you, chances are that developers flesh out the consequences a bit more.

The Witcher proves you wrong. However, someone has already said that.

 

[Squeek]

For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.

Yes, that is what singleplayer CRPGs are compared to multiplayer RPGs.

Based on developer interviews lately, that seems to be a prevailing point of view. But from a technical standpoint, it's actually kind of crazy to think client-server applications would ever have that kind of superiority.

Single player applications have far greater potential, because they're hosted on individual platforms while client-server applications need to be hosted on a single platform with clients who are restricted to the same version. WoW subscribers have all been playing the same thing together while fans of single-player games have been experimenting with mods and proving over and over the advantage of individual platforms running individual versions.

So why has WoW been kicking ass? Mods are the right idea approached the wrong way. There's only so much amateur developers can do with limited tools and time to use them.

IMO, the solution is for that effort to shift over to the original developers who up until now have been facing their own limitation -- the $60 price point. They should start thinking in terms of developing in a variety of versions available over the Internet in exchange for subscription commitments.

 

[oscar]

Yes please. Being "good" should always be harder then being "bad", with maybe the occasional exception, as it is in real life.