Editorial RPG Codex Editorial: Where Journalism Goes to Write Itself

[Ninjerk]

Correct me if I'm wrong but is this the guy that goes by Jimquisition on the Escapist now?

 

[Machocruz]

Yep.

 

[Roguey]

So for something to "function like a video game," mind you it has a narrative and a setting that we are meant to invest in, it has to throw versimilitude out the window? I for one felt the same as the "crazy NMA" people about Fallout 3 because I loved the TB combat and overhead third person viewpoint. I appreciate other styles of game, too, but this guy is/was out of his mind.

Gameplay uber alles.
http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/235421846139320996

Complaining about unlooted containers in a RPG is pedantic.

 

[dnf]

So for something to "function like a video game," mind you it has a narrative and a setting that we are meant to invest in, it has to throw versimilitude out the window? I for one felt the same as the "crazy NMA" people about Fallout 3 because I loved the TB combat and overhead third person viewpoint. I appreciate other styles of game, too, but this guy is/was out of his mind.

Gameplay uber alles.
http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/235421846139320996

Complaining about unlooted containers in a RPG is pedantic.

Context needed. What if the loot is guarded by raiders? Ok.
What if the loot is unguarded by raiders in the same building that raiders are chilling? Derp.

 

[Roguey]

What if the loot is unguarded by raiders in the same building that raiders are chilling? Derp.

They're not going to be watching everything.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Khan_Base

20 .44 magnum rounds in the eastern most tent.

There's also a dead ghoul in the sewers of necropolis who has a plasma pistol. No one cares where or how he got such a rare weapon. It exists in this location for weapon progression purposes.

 

[Excidium]

So for something to "function like a video game," mind you it has a narrative and a setting that we are meant to invest in, it has to throw versimilitude out the window? I for one felt the same as the "crazy NMA" people about Fallout 3 because I loved the TB combat and overhead third person viewpoint. I appreciate other styles of game, too, but this guy is/was out of his mind.

Gameplay uber alles.
http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/235421846139320996

Typical Sawyerism. A good RPG designer would find a compromise between simulation and the purpose of the game.

 

[Lhynn]

So for something to "function like a video game," mind you it has a narrative and a setting that we are meant to invest in, it has to throw versimilitude out the window? I for one felt the same as the "crazy NMA" people about Fallout 3 because I loved the TB combat and overhead third person viewpoint. I appreciate other styles of game, too, but this guy is/was out of his mind.

Gameplay uber alles.
http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/235421846139320996

Typical Sawyerism. A good RPG designer would find a compromise between simulation and the purpose of the game.

So... 1 and a half hour and crippled?

 

[crawlkill]

Always everywhere, we see how far people will go talking about talking about talking

Welcome to the Internet, enjoy your stay.

of all the digital pits I hang out around, the Codex is definitely off the charts for aggrieved meta-conversation and thinly-veiled wounded apologymongering. but HE said that HE said that HE said seems to crop up here on a regular basis.

Typical Sawyerism. A good RPG designer would find a compromise between simulation and the purpose of the game.

uhhh, no. every decision you make should be to do with the purpose of the game. it's for the designer to decide if simulation is part of that purpose. many games are purely abstract and have no "simulationist" elements at all, and that's fine. many attempts at simulation turn out laughably cartoonish, and that...can be fine as long as they were also well-designed systems that weren't just included as some ill-thought-out shill to the seven people who prefer verisimilitude to the funs.

 

[Cosmo]

As usual, neither the Sawyer apologists nor his bashers seem to be able to grasp his statements : for example this can very well mean that players who wish for realism in RPGs are just totally unaware that they truly want a set of canon rules that are viewed as "realistic", but are no less arbitrary and constitute no less at treason of the laws of of reality than what they see as a "gamist" approach. Let me just add that Sawyer's approach of weaponry for example (in PE every weapon can shine depending on the situation) is way closer to real medieval warfare than the usual fantasy D&D tropes...
Sawyer is as much a realistfag than, than he is a gamist. What, your little mind can't deal with that people ?

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

As usual, neither the Sawyer apologists nor his bashers seem to be able to grasp his statements : for example this can very well mean that players who wish for realism in RPGs are just totally unaware that they truly want a set of canon rules that are viewed as "realistic", but are no less arbitrary and constitute no less at treason of the laws of of reality than what they see as a "gamist" approach. Let me just add that Sawyer's approach of weaponry for example (in PE every weapon can shine depending on the situation) is way closer to real medieval warfare than the usual fantasy D&D tropes...
Sawyer is as much a realistfag than, than he is a gamist. What, your little mind can't deal with that people ?

Yes. Strangely, a sarcastic response to a passive aggressive insult couched as a question is not a great place to find a nuanced statement of principles.

Also, implicit in the idea that gameplay should trump realism is that there actually is a conflict between gameplay and realism. For quite a few of the problems with FO3, there was zero gameplay gained by sacrificing believability, it was just slopping thinking. For example, with the water purification, why not have your father working on a project that actually made sense? Zero gameplay would be lost by Ctrl-F'ing "radiation" and replacing with "Super Science Cholera".

 

[Lhynn]

What, your little mind can't deal with that people ?

Mine cant, its too much Cosmo, please, help me understand, unravel the mysteries of game making. Plese, help me understand Sawyer.

 

[FeelTheRads]

http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/235421846139320996

What an absolutely retarded answer.

 

[felipepepe]

THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!

 

[Zeriel]

Yeah, it's really easy to make your viewpoints seem unassailable if you just exaggerate any alternative into comical extremes.

 

[Roguey]

Yeah, it's really easy to make your viewpoints seem unassailable if you just exaggerate any alternative into comical extremes.

Yet it remains a fact that most people are willing to sacrifice realism/believablity for improved gameplay. Quantifying a point where you've gone too far is futile because you're not going to find a consensus. Better to just focus on making the best game possible.

 

[Zeriel]

Which is the real minefield, isn't it? Because the best game possible might actually be a game that both has good systems and doesn't sacrifice all believability on the altar of those very same systems.

I don't know. I find this subject very difficult to approach because I can see things in pre-Sawyer Black Isle that were not technically "good gameplay" but nevertheless made the games better for my personal, anecdotal experience. I admire his approach in a general sense, but I feel it fits multiplayer centric games much more than it does singleplayer RPGs.

 

[tuluse]

Yet it remains a fact that most people are willing to sacrifice realism/believablity for improved gameplay. Quantifying a point where you've gone too far is futile because you're not going to find a consensus. Better to just focus on making the best game possible.

Verisimilitude isn't the same thing as realism.

 

[Machocruz]

Bethesda is awful at that sacrifice. Every thing they strip out tends to make their games worse. Quantity and detail was their saving grace, because it ain't combat or NPC interaction imo.

 

[Lhynn]

Yeah, it's really easy to make your viewpoints seem unassailable if you just exaggerate any alternative into comical extremes.

Yet it remains a fact that most people are willing to sacrifice realism/believablity for improved gameplay. Quantifying a point where you've gone too far is futile because you're not going to find a consensus. Better to just focus on making the best game possible.

No, thats a lie, a fabrication from devs. Truth is its a hell of a lot easier to craft a world were gameplay gets the upper hand over realism, as if one wasnt there to serve the other.
It was never about the gamer, its always about the one making it and how he strikes a balance.

on second thought, Fuck beth for selling out to the console tards

 

[Lancehead]

Sometimes I think Sawyer purposefully misinterprets the opposing arguments on "realism". As has been stated many times before, it's not about realism, it's about simulating the game world through game mechanics. Realism happens to be a by-product of it; if Sawyer were to go back and watch his own video he made recently about the importance of creating believable worlds, he'd see why realism is in the equation. When you simulate a believable world through mechanics, the mechanics and the governing systems are necessarily realistic. And 1:1 realism is never asked for, abstraction is understood and desired, which makes Sawyer's comment "bleeding for the next three hours" absolutely ridiculous and a huge straw-man.

The major advantage of simulating a game world through its mechanics, instead of them existing in separate spheres, is free-form problem-solving. And free-form problem-solving is desirable because it accommodates and encourages player creativity. Having said that, I can understand Obsidian not going the simulation route; because it requires a sacrifice in robustness of story and characters, which would be under-utilising Obsidian's main strength, the writing. But for Sawyer to not see the advantages of simulation is unfortunate.

 

[Lhynn]

Sometimes I think Sawyer purposefully misinterprets the opposing arguments on "realism". As has been stated many times before, it's not about realism, it's about simulating the game world through game mechanics. Realism happens to be a by-product of it; if Sawyer were to go back and watch his own video he made recently about the importance of creating believable worlds, he'd see why realism is in the equation. When you simulate a believable world through mechanics, the mechanics and the governing systems are necessarily realistic. And 1:1 realism is never asked for, abstraction is understood and desired, which makes Sawyer's comment "bleeding for the next three hours" absolutely ridiculous and a huge straw-man.

The major advantage of simulating a game world through its mechanics, instead of them existing in separate spheres, is free-form problem-solving. And free-form problem-solving is desirable because it accommodates and encourages player creativity. Having said that, I can understand Obsidian not going the simulation route; because it requires a sacrifice in robustness of story and characters, which would be under-utilising Obsidian's main strength, the writing. But for Sawyer to not see the advantages of simulation is unfortunate.

This is what has been on my mind for the last couple days, and i just could not find the way to express it, much less with the level of clarity youve just showed.
This guy is made of

 

[Infinitron]

lawl, Sawyer's reply to that question was an obvious troll post.

The major advantage of simulating a game world through its mechanics, instead of them existing in separate spheres, is free-form problem-solving. And free-form problem-solving is desirable because it accommodates and encourages player creativity. Having said that, I can understand Obsidian not going the simulation route; because it requires a sacrifice in robustness of story and characters, which would be under-utilising Obsidian's main strength, the writing. But for Sawyer to not see the advantages of simulation is unfortunate.

"Free-form problem-solving" is something that emerges in any sufficiently complex system, regardless of how "simulating" it is.

Maybe it's not the kind of freedom you're looking for, though.

 

[Infinitron]

Lancehead Here's an image that succintly demonstrates the pitfalls of games that go for a heavily simulated approach:

"Creative free-form problem solving", or unfun obvious exploit?

 

[Grunker]

As all roads lead to Rome, so all threads lead to Sawyer.

 

[evdk]

"Creative free-form problem solving", or unfun obvious exploit?

I am a bit sceptical about the existence of "unfun obvious exploits" in a single player game.