how did the Codex's obsession with C&C originate? was it Fallout 1?

[Delterius]

but the ultimate replayability lies in gameplay mechanics which, by themselves, produce choice and consequence.

A dialogue system based on character attributes is not a gameplay mechanic?

You and most others create this distinction between Story and Gameplay that does not really exist. The best games tell their story through gameplay sequences. In fact, all games end up doing that. Fallout isn't a CYOA as opposed to Real RPGs but rather the same logic of character driven C&C applied to dialogue driven gameplay. That is because Adventure games are centered around the exploration of a gameworld while RPGs are about character creation and development. Blobbers are also part of that genre because of the character driven C&C within the confines of their dungeon crawling storytelling.

 

[Courtier]

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is C&C Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha

 

[kris]

how did story C&C become the only RPG element the codex recognizes instead of actual gameplay C&C?

it seems like the codex does not care for RPGs at all but rather adventure game hybrids. Granted, adventure game hybrids are the norm now and real RPGs are no longer produced so one can't fault a community for liking what is being made en masse (i.e. Final Fantasy, Pillars of Eternity, etc).

I am going to skip your second sentence which is a pure trolling attempt.

what you call "story C&C" isn't at all the codex preference and what was talked about the most. In fact the prime example used was how you took care of the mob boss in junktown. That was done with a combination of gameplay and conversation choices and could be done in several ways and had different consequences.

Most of the talk about "story C&C" that you refer too is born out of the complaints about Bioware games as with those it is pretty much only about conversations and in particular how most choices lead to the same thing.

But I am pretty sure you know this and just want to further your agenda telling us you think RPG is about combat, i thought the same when I was a teen, but with years combat moved more and more into the background... Hence why you claim that anything outside combat is "adventure games" even if those was nothing like the RPGs we talk about today.

 

[Mustawd]

Most of the talk about "story C&C" that you refer too is born out of the complaints about Bioware games as with those it is pretty much only about conversations and in particular how most choices lead to the same thing.

Yes, I think this is correct. Basically /thread at this point.

 

[Hupu]

A dialogue system based on character attributes is not a gameplay mechanic?

It's important to underline "based on character attributes", a simple "if player picks A then go to B" is quite shallow and goes into "are VNs games" discussion territory. If in order to make a particular choice the player had to pick an attribute and forgo other attribute which would have a meaningful impact in another part of the game, then it's very much a gameplay mechanic.
That's why I personally can't get invested in Bethesda games where you quickly become so powerful that no choice you take can fuck you over.

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is C&C Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha

How Can C&C Be Real If NPCs Aren't Real

 

[Lady_Error]

i thought the same when I was a teen

 

[Delterius]

It's important to underline "based on character attributes", a simple "if player picks A then go to B" is quite shallow and goes into "are VNs games" discussion territory. If in order to make a particular choice the player had to pick an attribute and forgo other attribute which would have a meaningful impact in another part of the game, then it's very much a gameplay mechanic.

I see what you mean but I'd argue it on different terms. A dialogue system without character attributes but with choices nonetheless can and is seen in mainstream discussion as a means to define your character's personality.

See: BioWare C&C. While most of the time Dragon Age does C&C its pointless and borderline cosmetic, it still adds something to the game. If you play as a noble prince whose parents were killed by a villain, the choice of sparing the assassin tells us something about you and your character even if there's no real Consequence tied to that choice. In a game like Dragon Age: Origins, where the choice is presented regardless of your character's background, the game's overall meaning still changes based on one of your character's attributes, wether he is the noble prince or not. And so on.

This may not seem like much for someone who likes to care about gameplay exclusively, but that's the second part of my argument above. Story, plot and gameplay are parts of the same whole. Gameplay tells a story and the Story is still important for the game. So instead of just dismissing one or the other with a 'No True Scotsman' argument about Visual Novels, CYOAS or what have you, I prefer to always ask if something more could have been done towards character driven roleplaying. To counter the average BioWare RPG there's Pillars of Eternity. Many of its dialogue choices are outright pointless but still rest on your character's attributes and still tells us something about the character's personality. Its not ideal but its already something.

 

[Vault Dweller]

i want to talk about why some people think adventure game choices are RPG elements while the game mechanics, i.e. the combat, which is the primary interaction of the player with the game world is relegated to a diminutive role that does not dictate the "RPG'ness" of the game.

I don't recall anyone claiming that, ever. A combat system is the foundation and in many cases it's more than enough. However, if an RPG attempts to tell a story and offers NPC interactions, it should have choices. Meaningful choices require consequences. It's that fucking simple.

Overall though, there are very few games with good combat systems that are strong enough to carry a game on their own and if a game doesn't engage the player in the combat department, it had better have engaging writing (Planescape: Torment) and/or C&C (MotB). Obviously, C&C aren't a novelty concept and have been around for a while:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2365.0.html

 

[Courtier]

 

[Ramireza]

 

[makiavelli747]

nice music

 

[Lord Azlan]

Lovely video - thanks for posting. Very helpful indeed. Sort of explains to me why some C&C just feels right and some C&C is "What's the point?"

Now - as an exercise to ensure I understood Alpha Protocol was Type 2 right?

Mass Effects Type 2

New Vegas Type 1

Witchers are Type 1 I think - but I still hate those games.

Oh - and who was the narrator?

 

[Drowed]

I'm just here thinking what kind of shitty DM OP must have had when playing tabletop RPGs, if his sessions didn't have any "story C&C" (as he called it) and no reactivity in the world.

I mean, virtually none of the adventures I've played went the way my DM thought initially, to the point that over the years he stopped trying to write a story for the adventure beforehand, deciding only to create a vague map, some general objectives, and then just improvising along the way.

 

[Courtier]

I'm all for the blobber agenda as well, though please more Wizardry 6/7/8 blobbers instead of the earlier dungeon crawlers that the Japanese are so fond of.

 

[Siobhan]

if a game doesn't engage the player in the combat department, it had better have engaging writing (Planescape: Torment) and/or C&C (MotB).

Uhm, what about all the stuff besides combat and story? Character systems, exploration, puzzles, resource management, atmosphere, and so on. Those can all supplement combat very well, no story required. In particular no story that's heavy on NPC-interactions. In what sense is story/C&C the inevitable remedy for combat that, taken in isolation, isn't enough to carry the game? Combat in your average blobber or rogue-like is rather shallow, but it doesn't need to be more than that because it's just a tiny (though important) part of a bigger formula.

 

[Vault Dweller]

if a game doesn't engage the player in the combat department, it had better have engaging writing (Planescape: Torment) and/or C&C (MotB).

Uhm, what about all the stuff besides combat and story? Character systems, exploration, puzzles, resource management, atmosphere, and so on.

A character system is a vital part of the combat system as you can't have one without the other. Same goes for resource management and anything used in combat or improve your combat abilities.

Exploration and atmosphere? Fair enough, let's add it to the list as well. They certainly work well in roguelikes and open world games, be it Witcher 3, Gothic 2, or Legend of Grimrock 2. I don't think they work as well outside of those sub-genres (in my opinion, if both the combat system and C&C are poor, neither atmosphere nor puzzles would be able to carry the game. They are a bonus, things that can make a good game great but they can't make a poor game good), but then again, many folks liked Legend of Grimrock 1, so maybe I'm mistaken.

 

[makiavelli747]

in my opinion, if both the combat system and C&C are poor, neither atmosphere nor puzzles would be able to carry the game. They are a bonus, things that can make a good game great but they can't make a poor game good

Does Bloodlines have strong C&C?

 

[jungl]

Its funny how you blobber guys act like there is depth to combat mechanics in the genre. Its always put your high AC dudes in the front casters in the back. Oh look elminage gothic there is two ways I can play this. craft magic and behead resist gear and steamroll the game or not.

 

[Vault Dweller]

in my opinion, if both the combat system and C&C are poor, neither atmosphere nor puzzles would be able to carry the game. They are a bonus, things that can make a good game great but they can't make a poor game good

Does Bloodlines have strong C&C?

It doesn't but the atmosphere is superb, I agree. True art the likes of which we'll never see again.

 

[Siobhan]

A character system is a vital part of the combat system as you can't have one without the other. Same goes for resource management and anything used in combat or improve your combat abilities.

Minor nitpick: there's plenty of combat-heavy strategy/tactics games that don't have a real character system, and isn't AoD at least partially an experiment in building a character system that's also viable for pacifist playthroughs? Or do you have a more general definition of combat in mind that includes any kind of antagonistic engagement, including haggling, intimidation, seduction...

If both the combat system and C&C are poor, neither atmosphere nor puzzles would be able to carry the game. [...] but then again, many folks liked Legend of Grimrock 1, so maybe I'm mistaken.

Yeah, I'm in that group of people who love the Grimrocks, in particular the second one, which is pretty much a puzzle sandbox with simplistic combat to make the rewards meaningful. Some codexers have also argued that the RoA series has shit combat --- I disagree, but even if that were objectively the case it wouldn't make a difference as to why the games work, despite the absence of C&C or a strong story.

Imho a major part of the appeal of LoG right now is also that there hasn't been a story- and dialogue-free RPG for such a long time. Almost every modern RPG, including Kickstarter projects, insists on tons of exposition, dialogue, dramatic story twists, companion interactions, (fake) C&C, giant towns with nothing but stores and pez-style quest dispensers, and it's all just such a mind-numbing drag. SR:HK was at its best when it was just a series of missions you choose from in some random subway station to get money and loot, and it was at its worst when you had to click through pages and pages of inane companion dialog or make a decision like whether the people on some floating trash island should start a revolt. It really hurts the pacing, and in the end SR:HK and these other games would have been better off if all of that stuff had just been cut out.

 

[Delterius]

Minor nitpick: there's plenty of combat-heavy strategy/tactics games that don't have a real character system

Would you consider those RPGs or strategy/tactics games?

 

[Siobhan]

The latter, but I took VD's general point to be that the kind of combat commonly featured in RPGs cannot work without a decent character system. And that's what these games are a counterexample to. The alternative interpretation would be that in every RPG combat must come part and parcel with a character system, which is vacuously true if the absence of said character system means the game isn't an RPG.

Edit: But if we're about to venture into the dangerous territory of terms and definitions, depending on what you consider the minimum threshold of complexity for an RPG character system, Albion and many old-school JRPGs are examples of RPGs with lots of combat and 0 options of character customization beyond loot. In Albion, the whole "character system" consists only of increasing your levels to get more HP and more attacks per round, you have no influence over progression at all (even the use-based magic system barely qualifies as anything but a grind treadmill). I'd still say that Albion's combat can be pretty fun as long as you don't cheese everything with Sira's frost avalanche. At the very least, it is functional enough to make the dungeons work.

 

[Delterius]

What he said is that a combat system inevitably requires a character system. You have after all different actors in conflict. Each of these actors have character traits which define how combat plays out. The Bishop moves diagonally and the Tower moves in straight lines, etc. In RPGs the focus tends to shift to that character system in order to create a game out of character creation and development. Without either of those you do not have much more roleplaying than in any other game genre. After all you play the role of a soldier in Medal of Honor, do you not? Hence why C&C is king, wether you are a blobber or a fallout style game.

 

[Lurker King]

Nah, it’s more like:

C&C [Type one]: meaningful simulation and replayability.

C&C [Type two]: shallow simulation and replayability just for the sake of it.

 

[Somberlain]

Well made choice and consequence stuff is a really nice addition but completely secondary to good gameplay and massively overrated here. I'd take a proper dungeon crawler with deep and interesting mechanics and great encounter design over a storyfag heavan with shitty gameplay any day of the week.