What makes a RPG highly replayable for you?

[BethesdaLove]

Other RPGs I replay because of the different paths available in the game. Knights of the Old Republic is an example of this type of game for me. I might play the exact same class of character through this type of game, but just make different choices along the way to see what happens.

I played the evil side and chocked everything that came in my way (cause i had to let out my hate of this game) than in a magnificent turn of events turned to the light side in the battle with bastilla (i played a whore and didnt even get a lesbian sex scene!) and saved the universe... but the light side cutscene is so unebelievable fucking GAY that i had to reload and make bastilla my sexslave. Then i looked for mods (ROFL, fail!) and the most popular ones involved bastilla, lingerie and lightsabers =|

edit
Lord Rocket's Funneh-Detect0rs are declining... or mine =|

 

[DraQ]

Basic 'replayability package' would be the game being enjoyable, for whatever reason - story, atmosphere, anything goes. Coincidentally it is also the 'basic playability package'. However, once the basic needs are fulfilled, an RPG needs to provide differences between the playthroughs to be replayable. This can be done by making a large explorable world, different gameplay with different character builds and, of course, choices and consequences, that have the additional advantage of giving player ability to influence the flow of the game and creating a personalized game experience.

o=={=====(X_x)====> __ _ _

Now in a thread next door it says that x is a closed door. Than an X is a big closed door and > are stairs up... But I dont get the others...

:D
I think you've got it wrong.

 

[shihonage]

I could care less about different character builds and multiple paths (as in "you'll miss some content whatever you do", not as in "you can use different means to bypass this obstacle"). In fact, I try to enable all paths and features of all builds in a single playthrough whenever possible (using multiclass characters, cheat consoles, hex editing, whatever). I don't want to be forced to replay the same kind of crap to see some exclusive spell or a pair of sidequests, I want it all at my fingertips at once, thankee very much.

I agree with this. The content difference that you get to experience upon a different character build should be dramatic (as in, you start in a different village and have a separate story dramatic), but most games (even including Fallout - GASP) failed to do it that way.

Yes, the character should be locked out of some possibilities during the game, but ALL of it should be result of their in-game choices, and not the choices made in pre-game character creation screen.

I guess this is my main disagreement with Fallout's design.

 

[Volourn]

"but ALL of it should be result of their in-game choices, and not the choices made in character creation screen."

u r dum

 

[DraQ]

In fact, I try to enable all paths and features of all builds in a single playthrough whenever possible (using multiclass characters, cheat consoles, hex editing, whatever). I don't want to be forced to replay the same kind of crap to see some exclusive spell or a pair of sidequests, I want it all at my fingertips at once, thankee very much.

I agree with this.

Go fucking die or something.

Yes, the character should be locked out of some possibilities during the game, but ALL of it should be result of their in-game choices, and not the choices made in pre-game character creation screen.

I guess this is my main disagreement with Fallout's design.

Pleasantries aside, why?

It makes perfect sense to, for example, be locked out of a racist faction if you don't pick their favoured race at chargen.

 

[shihonage]

Go fucking die or something.

Good day to you too, sir !

Care for a cigar ?

Pleasantries aside, why?

It makes perfect sense to, for example, be locked out of a racist faction if you don't pick their favoured race at chargen.

Yes, but that's a rare case, because it is tied to character's appearance. The majority of C&C in the game doesn't have to be tied to character's appearance. It has to be tied to results of his previous actions, which open some doors and close others.

Make no mistake - I do not subscribe to "all doors should be open at all times" philosophy. I just want to move ALL of the decisions behind their closing/opening into the actual game, rather than leaving a bunch of them at the character screen and forcing the player to have another entire playthrough to have a chance at them.

 

[DraQ]

The majority of C&C in the game doesn't have to be tied to character's appearance.
(...)
I just want to move ALL of the decisions behind their closing/opening into the actual game

Given that some of the consequences may reasonably be tied to the choices you make during chargen, why move ALL the consequence bearing choices from the chargen, into the game?

forcing the player to have another entire playthrough to have a chance at them.

How about other ways to restrict the content available to the player, like delayed consequences of character's action? Should those be out as well, only because of your desire to cheat the system through the use of quickload function?

While we are at that, why not subscribe to the "all doors should be open at all times" philosophy? It should make accessing all the content even easier and consequence-free, isn't Oblivion, like, 'teh best RPG evar'?

 

[ushdugery]

snip

I couldn't write it better. Same games, same taste, same reasoning :D

 

[shihonage]

Given that some of the consequences may reasonably be tied to the choices you make during chargen, why move ALL the consequence bearing choices from the chargen, into the game?

I don't look at it that way. I look at character evolving through his in-game actions being the logical part of "char.gen". It is more intuitive for the player to sense and choose his paths in-place rather than setting them in stone at the char. screen.

While we are at that, why not subscribe to the "all doors should be open at all times" philosophy? It should make accessing all the content even easier and consequence-free, isn't Oblivion, like, 'teh best RPG evar'?

That's a retarded philosophy and the day I implement it I will hang myself by the beard I will undoubtedly have grown by then. The beard of shame.

 

[DraQ]

Given that some of the consequences may reasonably be tied to the choices you make during chargen, why move ALL the consequence bearing choices from the chargen, into the game?

I don't look at it that way. I look at character evolving through his in-game actions being the logical part of "char.gen". It is more intuitive for the player to sense and choose his paths in-place rather than setting them in stone at the char. screen.

Some things are set in stone at the chargen, though. Things like character's race, sex and (if available) background. Those should open some paths and cut off the others where applicable, even though the majority of the in-game choices would happen, well, in game.

You still haven't answered my question, though - what with other kinds of mechanics with potential to void your one-playthrough-see-all playstyle, like, for example, delayed consequences? Because, if you say no to those, we will have to be disagreeing again.

That's a retarded philosophy

This I agree with.

 

[DemonKing]

Well, I'll replay any game I have which I enjoyed, whether it be a CRPG, FPS or RTS or anything else, if only to recapture some of the enjoyment I got from playing it the first time through.

CRPGs actually tend to be more replayable than the other genres because you can usually try out alternative character builds, party mixes, combat tactics, good/evil paths and different approaches to problems (for example, the monastry in IWD2 comes to mind - you could either do a trial for the monks or slaughter them to progress).

On the other hand, there are some CRPGs that were so awful, I don't believe the effort put into replaying them would justify the time spent. For example, POR2 had absolutely none of the features above that might make me replay it. Something like Arcanum is interesting because while in many ways it is very replayable, the utter awfulness of the combat engine have prevented me from bothering (so far).

 

[Radisshu]

Strangely, despite its linearity, Torment is one of the more replayable RPGs I know of. It's not THAT strange, though, since you can approach the critical path and NPC interactions in so many ways depending on your character's alignment. I'll never get tired of playing the Ravel part, especially was a wizard ("Gather to ME").

 

[DraQ]

you can approach the critical path and NPC interactions in so many ways depending on your character's alignment

and stats!

 

[mondblut]

BLOOD!
RAR!

What's wrong with wishing to experience alll the game's features and content without having to endure playing it three times? It's not like the playthroughs are that different. Every game is still 99% the same, same quests and encounters set in same locations, and I sure as hell do not wish to waste thrice as much time than it takes to complete it on a game in order to experience the remaining 1%. Time I could spend playing 2 other, different games.

I am really fucking pissed when a game forces to me to forfeit a part of adventuring I could experience just for the sake of "non-linearity" and "replayability". To hell with it! Non-linearity is when I can wander wherever I want and kill whatever I am able to, and replayability comes if this wandering and killing is actually fun.

While we are at that, why not subscribe to the "all doors should be open at all times" philosophy? It should make accessing all the content even easier and consequence-free, isn't Oblivion, like, 'teh best RPG evar'?

A locked door is just another gameplay challenge to overcome. It can be bashed down, lockpicked or magically unlocked, in an ideal world you could also blow up a chunk of wall, dig under it or hire a bunch of ogres with a log to break through.

But doors which cannot be bypassed no matter what because a player "chose something else" in character generation or in some dialogue elsewhere - mustn't ever, ever exist.

A roleplaying game is ideally about complete freedom of travel and action, limited only by your character's abilities and alignment. And my character happens to always be a chaotic neutral fighter/mage/cleric/thief/bard/whatever with godlike stats and superhuman skills. Because I enjoy it.

 

[DraQ]

Non-linearity is when I can wander wherever I want and kill whatever I am able to, and replayability comes if this wandering and killing is actually fun.

How unsurprising.

Fantasy, for us, is a knight on horseback running around and killing things

 

[mondblut]

How unsurprising.

Fantasy, for us, is a knight on horseback running around and killing things

In turn-based mode? Then I am all for it.

...and you still didn't explain how a game which blocks some of its content from a player no matter what he choses and does is any better than a game whose whole content is available at once if player makes right decisions.

 

[Radisshu]

A roleplaying game is ideally about complete freedom of travel and action, limited only by your character's abilities and alignment.

I think a role-playing game in which you can max everything out and do everything is flawed.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

A roleplaying game is ideally about complete freedom of travel and action, limited only by your character's abilities and alignment.

I think a role-playing game in which you can max everything out and do everything is flawed.

I think freedom through dialogue options and choices in the story is more important than complete freedom of exploration.

 

[mondblut]

I think a role-playing game in which you can max everything out and do everything is flawed.

Then any party-based RPG must be flawed, because you can have a perfect strongman, a perfect rogue, a perfect spellcaster and a perfect talker all at once in it.

Besides, it's all about whether you want or not to abide by the rules. I personally don't when they stand in the way of my fun. The rules state you can only distribute 10 points among stats, maxing out only one or two abilities and being unable to use options associated with the rest. I WISH to have all options available, because that's more fun for me, so I break the rules and max all abilities. Because I want to.

I think freedom through dialogue options and choices in the story is more important than complete freedom of exploration.

RPGs thrived for many years without a single dialogue line or any kind of story beyond "kill the Dark Lord" in them.

 

[Radisshu]

A roleplaying game is ideally about complete freedom of travel and action, limited only by your character's abilities and alignment.

I think a role-playing game in which you can max everything out and do everything is flawed.

I think freedom through dialogue options and choices in the story is more important than complete freedom of exploration.

So do I. Oblivion is one example of that, BG1 is one, and I resently played through a campaign for NWN called Darkness over Daggerford that was very much like BG (and quite good), very non-linear but completely fucking railroading in how many optional quests were solved.

SPOILER: In one part of the game, you find some kind of necromancer/researcher that has hidden away in a crypt near a town to conduct experiments on more advanced zombies (zombies that can perform things other than eating brains, he plans to hire them out to people in need of workers, but whatever). He is not hostile, and simply explains his work, yet you STILL are fucking forced to kill him through dialouge. I got to choose between "WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG, DIE!" "I suppose I can agree with you.. but DIE!" and just "DIE"

 

[DraQ]

@mondblut:
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php

I got to choose between "WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG, DIE!" "I suppose I can agree with you.. but DIE!" and just "DIE"

Ugh, that's horrible. Even great-as-a-game-but-not-so-great-as-a-cRPG-and-certainly-NOT-great-in-C&C-department Morrowind handled this kind of stuff better.

 

[mondblut]

@mondblut:
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php

I don't care for action games. My RPGs have been invented in 1973, not in 1997.

 

[Radisshu]

@mondblut:
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php

I got to choose between "WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG, DIE!" "I suppose I can agree with you.. but DIE!" and just "DIE"

Ugh, that's horrible. Even great-as-a-game-but-not-so-great-as-a-cRPG-and-certainly-NOT-great-in-C&C-department Morrowind handled this kind of stuff better.

Yeah. It didn't make much sense either, because in certain other plots there were paths much more evil than letting some guy work on zombies (freeing a really evil ancient lich, putting an honest antique dealer out of business to help a criminal, etc).

 

[shihonage]

Some things are set in stone at the chargen, though. Things like character's race, sex and (if available) background. Those should open some paths and cut off the others where applicable, even though the majority of the in-game choices would happen, well, in game.

You still haven't answered my question, though - what with other kinds of mechanics with potential to void your one-playthrough-see-all playstyle, like, for example, delayed consequences? Because, if you say no to those, we will have to be disagreeing again.

I am not sure I can answer your question because... I said I don't want a one-playthrough-see-all playstyle.

I see the game as a mansion with doors, yes. The player goes around opening doors, however some of those doors, when opened, block other doors from opening permanently.

I prefer having ALL of this in-game,because the game context provides a sort of intuitive in-place feedback for what the player might do and what might happen if he does it. The character screen is a lifeless noninteractive spreadsheet, it's not really in-game, and I have a problem with that. I want the player to have a chance to go, "on second thought, I am not going to do this", instead of being resigned to game world choices made _before_ the actual game !

So I guess I am willing to forgo the racial-attribute based NPC reactions in favor of unifying everything and moving it in-game. People's reactions can still bounce off your appearance, its just your appearance is due to what you're wearing and equipped with.