Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.
Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.
Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.
Which consequences would you like?
How would I know? I'm not the one writing the game. It would depend on the details of the game.
Real consequences can only be done in a simulationist game and those are few and far between. Either you end up with a game with very direct consequences but very little input besides binary choices, which is the current format, or you get a game like dwarf fortress in whcih everything affects everything else, but also is hard to get in to and the opposit of tripple A
Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.
Which consequences would you like?
How would I know? I'm not the one writing the game. It would depend on the details of the game.
Player agency/freedom/choices are well and good but only if they also come with real consequences. I don't want the game to be where I can do anything I want, but the outcomes are, at the end of the day, all largely the same. For example, kill any NPC I want but the game/quests moving forward are not affected in any way.
Which consequences would you like?
How would I know? I'm not the one writing the game. It would depend on the details of the game.
Well you must have an idea, no?
Well I gave the example from the D:OS games, where the claim is you can kill any NPC without hurting your ability to complete the game or any quests. For some people this is awesome as "player freedom." For me, this is a really stupid thing because when you go around killing NPCs there SHOULD be consequences, real, serious consequences. Another example is breaking into people's homes and robbing them blind. A true RPG should of course allow that, but there should be real consequences for doing that. This is what I mean.
Ok and what are real consequences? tell me one game that pulls it off? Because 99% of the time, if a game does it, its something pre scripted by the developer as a binary choice.
to make something like this work dynamically , youd have to do something completley simulationist.
Well I gave the example from the D:OS games, where the claim is you can kill any NPC without hurting your ability to complete the game or any quests.
No, the claim is that the main plot is completable if you kill most NPCs. Side quests can easily be broken that way, merchants can refuse to deal with you, etc, and it can be much more difficult to find required information for main plot quests. In D:OS there are consequences for stealing if you are caught. D:OS 2 extended that so NPCs would search for the culprit when items were noticed missing, and guards could search character inventories (with a time limit). If you wanted to be completely realistic and immersive there would be much less random loot, and more than one or two missing items shortly after new people show up in town would have everyone assuming you were thieves, and depending on the setting, not necessarily shy about treating you that way.
Yeah, it is kind of a bummer that you cannot go back to previous maps. Many people completed the quests of the act and then go on a killing rampage to get xp before continue to the next chapter o.O
my point is, if you were go full "hard consequence"; you murder one NPC and suddenly you are kill on sight for all guards in town. It just doesnt work for a game like OS2, its too constrained.
Yeah, it is kind of a bummer that you cannot go back to previous maps. Many people completed the quests of the act and then go on a killing rampage to get xp before continue to the next chapter o.O
I suppose I never really understand people who do the whole "lol killing spree" thing anyway, whether or not from a role-playing perspective. Then again I'm that person who wrote a program complete with its own crappity scripting language to safeguard most of the NPCs in Oblivion because I was fed up with finding settlements to be deserted whether or not an NPC was especially "useful" (though I do have especially not fond memories of spending hours searching for skills trainer Bralsa Andaren who I only discovered afterwards was notorious for being beared to death thanks to aimlessly wandering about in the wilderness).
See i loved that about oblivion. but it annoyed me at the same time. I still got pissed they toned it down in Skyrim.
I wanted more AI randomness not less, i just wish the NPC got replaced when they die, or just have more generic NPCs that do the traveling and getting itno hijinks
Still havent found a good mod, theres tons of mods that add more NPCs, but very few that add NPCs that just travel around and do things int he world. the organized bandits mod is actually the closest one i found.
My favourite "extra NPCs" mod for Oblivion was Modem's City Life which added a bunch of new characters who you'd often find roaming the wilds; including an insane Brienne-like woman called Gertrude who'd track you down once a week just to help out with random stuff before buggering off again. It also added a bunch of kids which may or may not be to everyone's taste, but for me it was a nice addition. They're just scripted to chase each other around during the day and their one line of dialogue is "sorry, but I mustn't speak to strangers"!
I got a bit carried away doing the AI in my own mod in an attempt to make my characters interesting, which they weren't especially as they had no extra dialogue. But it was much too ambitious and as a result never saw the light of day.
Well I gave the example from the D:OS games, where the claim is you can kill any NPC without hurting your ability to complete the game or any quests.
No, the claim is that the main plot is completable if you kill most NPCs. Side quests can easily be broken that way, merchants can refuse to deal with you, etc, and it can be much more difficult to find required information for main plot quests. In D:OS there are consequences for stealing if you are caught. D:OS 2 extended that so NPCs would search for the culprit when items were noticed missing, and guards could search character inventories (with a time limit). If you wanted to be completely realistic and immersive there would be much less random loot, and more than one or two missing items shortly after new people show up in town would have everyone assuming you were thieves, and depending on the setting, not necessarily shy about treating you that way.
gotta check that one out, i havent played oblivion in ages
Same. It's the game that really immersed me for the first time (a bit sad considering I've been gaming on and off since the late '70s... RPGs had somehow passed me by for 30 years, though) so I'll always have a soft spot for it; especially as it's the game that also got me involved in modding. Last time I played it I did think it was looking a bit long in the tooth though that might simply be because I've sunk so many hours into it. I nearly wrote that it "now looks a bit dated" but I don't think that's especially relevant given that right now I'm enjoying Kingdoms of Amalur which deliberately capitalises on the somewhat nostalgic, cartoony look and isn't the worse for it. If anything it's The Grimdark Era that followed Oblivion that now looks quite dated. But I digress, this entire area is so subjective as to be meaningless and I've kinda lost track of what point I was even making!
In more general terms, I think games studios need to make an effort with random NPCs, whether they're simply "background scenery" or people who give interesting side-quests. I often don't want to be bothered progressing the main story and just want to wander off and do something random or speak to someone who has something to say that I haven't heard before.
well i personally think that the issue is that simulationism is no longer cool. I mean what were the last big budget simulationist RPG? Daggerfall? Right now theres Dwarf fortress and Rimworld which doesnt have an RPG mode and Mount and Blade is probably the closest you get.
i had high hopes for Everquest Next, but then it got canceled. Oblivion at least tried, Skyrim took a step back, not a big fallout fan but knowing Bethesda it probably isnt any better. Simulating a world is in my opinion something to work towards.
Right now, it doesnt work well, but it already creates cool stuff. Developers already realized that players consume content much faster than its created, and that emergent gameplay will always rule supreme. Thus the new (non tripple A) trend towards open world crafting multiplayer, letting players create their own stories. But those worlds are only player driven.
I think the next big revolution, which Everquest Next tried to do, is to make the AI proactive. Make a world that can exit without the players (but maybe one that is doomed, there goes a cool premise for an RPG, have a compleltey simulated fantasy world that will absoluteley be destroyed if you dont stop it, and you got a complete free hand on how you choose to stop the uncoming desaster, id play that)
And then put it together. thats the great RPG dream i think. Play In a world rather than through it. a world that exists on its own, that dynamically reacts to you. Where not only players create content for you, but the AI aswell.:
THe problem is, the tiny little baby steps in that direction? They dont do a lot, they are not impressive and thats why the market doesnt move towards it. But if you put enaugh effort and several iterations of games into this idea, you could create something far more impressive than any hand crafted RPG.
Or partly handcrafted. I think procedual generation is a dead end. Ideally, developers would hand crat a world that can live on itself, with a set history, created to be interresting and beautifull, and then send the world on its path. It mixes the best of hand crafted worlds with the best of emergent gameplay.
its the far future of RPGs, i hope i live to see it
EDIT: on a note: i think those developers who actually attempt this sort of game, are too preoccupied with realism. Having more depth and more systems allow for more hijinks and cool stuff to happen, however, simulation shouldnt be in the way of good gameplay. A simulated world, should simulate a world on the parameters that make a good game. For example, a good , not realistic, combat system. Also the focus is too much on simulating the creation of items from a gorillion of materials, rather than simulating the interplay between AI individuals, and diversifying their descision making process
