RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   Tactica: Maiden of Faith (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Choices & Consequences or Game Length? which is most important? (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9587)

GothicGothicness January 7th, 2010 10:21

Choices & Consequences or Game Length? which is most important?
 
I am thinking of what to be the main focus. As already stated this game has a lot of C&C but each time you add a choice with real consequence your developemnt time is multiplied by 2 ( Assuming the two paths are completely different ).

I am wondering which people think is most important replayability and C&C or game length? Almost every game I know of except Japanese games focus on game length.

dteowner January 7th, 2010 14:12

It's very rare that I replay games, so gimme an epic.

Alrik Fassbauer January 7th, 2010 14:33

What is "C&C" ? I only know "Command & Conquer".

wolfing January 7th, 2010 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer (Post 1060991466)
What is "C&C" ? I only know "Command & Conquer".

me too :) but I think it means choices & consequences.

To me, it's game length. Whenever I play games with choices, I keep thinking "I'll replay this as a xxxxxx to see what other endings there are" but then I never end up doing it. New games keep coming and I never ever play the games twice.
The only thing that would make me play a game again is if actual gameplay (and not just story) changes from one to the next. For example, if playing the 'good side' I have units/spells/abilities that are fundamentally different than if I play the 'evil side', so it could be considered as a different game. But if it's only story, I usually just play it once and then read or watch in youtube the other endings.

GothicGothicness January 7th, 2010 15:14

But maybe the reason that games are so seldom replayed is that it makes so little difference? Ussually as you said wolfing all you might get is a different ending.. which you could watch on youtube. But a game like deus ex acctually makes quite some difference depending on what you do.

But what if a lot of events / story parts / battles / characters etc was different? in that case maybe the replay would be much more interesting ?

Quote:

What is "C&C" ? I only know "Command & Conquer".
Oooops I thought this was a well-known concept. I stand corrected :) I updated the title to write Choices and Consequences. I guess the pool is slighty flawed as a game such as the witcher might be fun because of the C&C even if you only play it through ones………….. but it is not possible to updates polls… o well.

skavenhorde January 7th, 2010 15:28

I voted for replayability even though length is important as well. RPGs don't seem to be having the problem that shooters are in which you play the game for 2 days and it's over. I hate paying full price for a game that takes less than a weekend to finish. I don't care how cool the graphics are or how fast and furious the gameplay is.

So as long as RPGs stay over the 2 day mark then I'll vote for replayability every time.

JemyM January 7th, 2010 15:31

I would like to avoid both simply because there's no time for long games or replaying games.

Complexity, depth and experience is what I want.

dteowner January 7th, 2010 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness (Post 1060991472)
But maybe the reason that games are so seldom replayed is that it makes so little difference? Ussually as you said wolfing all you might get is a different ending.. which you could watch on youtube. But a game like deus ex acctually makes quite some difference depending on what you do.

But what if a lot of events / story parts / battles / characters etc was different? in that case maybe the replay would be much more interesting ?

That approach will force you to choose an audience. As a complete-ist, I get very irate over games that force me into a complete replay in order to experience all the content. A side quest here or there is one thing, but exclusive branches in the main quest are hard to pull off. I think M&M7 might be the only game I've played that pulled it off and that was simply because the game was good enough that I was willing to replay it, which as I mentioned is very rare.

So you choose between depth/replay and satisfying a portion of your audience. Not saying either choice is "right", but you should be aware you're making it.

crpgnut January 7th, 2010 16:25

Add me to game length being my favored criteria. I do play extremely long games over and over again though. Its games that focus on story and lots of talky, talky that don't get much play time from me. I want deep skills systems, good character creation, and a big world with lots to do. This doesn't surprise anybody though. All my favorite games (New World Computing's-Might and Magic series and Bethesda's epic games), are very long. I've logged over 400 hours playing Fallout 3 and over 1000 playing Oblivion. I've replayed Might and Magic 3 and 7 once a year/18months since their release.

Anderson January 7th, 2010 19:30

Choices and consequences, but not necessarily so that I can replay it. I rarely replay games, but I appreciate choices/reactivity all along the way.

I don't really care about game length. Even the short RPGs are quite long enough for me, and the longer ones are sometimes too long.

crpgnut January 7th, 2010 19:49

Anderson, I love your reply when looking at your avatar pic. One of the longest games in history :)

Thrasher January 7th, 2010 21:27

I'm exactly with DTE on this one (don't have a heart attack). ;)

I have yet to find an RPG campaign that was worth replaying on its own merits. There's just too much repetition. Just like I rarely reread a book (Tolkien being the exception).

I did replay DII on harder difficulty levels, but that was to further my character, not because the campaign was enthralling.

Anderson January 8th, 2010 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by crpgnut (Post 1060991509)
Anderson, I love your reply when looking at your avatar pic. One of the longest games in history :)

True. :) But Morrowind wasn't one of the games I was thinking about, when I said sometimes RPGs are too long. I loved every hour of it, all 150 or whatever it was. I was thinking of Dragon Age.

Thrasher January 8th, 2010 00:24

Really? How about those long hiking trips between quest givers and destinations with continuously respawning flying beasts? It became completely lovable once I created a flying ring that allowed me shortcut all that filler. :)

DA on the other hand, sigh….

Anderson January 8th, 2010 03:22

Well, I might be blinded by nostalgia a little, but I can't remember ever feeling bored. I enjoyed the long treks. It was the first RPG I played, and I loved the open-world design. I had the map pinned to my wall, and I used to think about all the places I'd gone and had left to go.

Those Cliff Racers were annoying, though.

skavenhorde January 8th, 2010 05:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by dteowner (Post 1060991481)
As a complete-ist, I get very irate over games that force me into a complete replay in order to experience all the content. A side quest here or there is one thing, but exclusive branches in the main quest are hard to pull off.

What about The Witcher? That forced you to choose how the story unfolded and based on your choices you recieved a totally different branch of the story. That was pure gaming goodness if you ask me. An actual roleplaying game that lets me "roleplay" my character. With my next replay I'll choose differently than I did in my first game. It makes replaying it a little more worthwhile.

GothicGothicness January 8th, 2010 09:11

Quote:

What about The Witcher? That forced you to choose how the story unfolded and based on your choices you recieved a totally different branch of the story. That was pure gaming goodness if you ask me. An actual roleplaying game that lets me "roleplay" my character. With my next replay I'll choose differently than I did in my first game. It makes replaying it a little more worthwhile.
Acctually I would go so far as to say… if it doesn't have choices and consequences it is not really a roleplaying game. Just linar story telling with stats & battles.

Thought given the comments on this thread, I will definetely try to make it longer than I originally had planned.

wolfing January 8th, 2010 17:19

A good example is old Sierra's Quest for Glory series. You could play as a mage, complete the game, then start over as a thief and it would be a completely different experience (different gameplay, different approach to puzzles, access to different areas) and then again as a fighter. It's one of the few games (RPG) I've replayed.

dteowner January 8th, 2010 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness (Post 1060991596)
Acctually I would go so far as to say… if it doesn't have choices and consequences it is not really a roleplaying game. Just linar story telling with stats & battles.

There's some truth to that, but we like to call it "old skool" or spreadsheet gaming. ;) It's just a different approach to the genre.

Again, it comes back to understanding your target audience. If you want to sell to Wiz8 and MM7 fans, you're wasting your time with deep branching story because iz all about character development. If you want to sell to Gothic fans, atmosphere (the living world) is king and character development is relatively pointless. If you want to sell to Morrowind fans (and I'd recommend counselling if that's the case ;) ) then you've got to build a good sandbox and everything else is totally pointless. If you want to sell to Witcher fans, your story has got to be complex and branching, but the gameplay can stink.

If you try to sell to all of those groups at the same time, you will fail. There's conflicting priorities between the things that must be great and the things that only have to be semi-functional. Decide what type of game your vision is, and then identify the sub-sub-subgroup of gamers that want it. Cater to those folks and accept that others will be unhappy. For example, if your vision is Morrowind Redux, you need to listen to Jaz and Sammy for advice and you should probably put me on ignore. They "get" that game and they understand what's important in a game like that. If your vision is Wiz9, I love you and I might have a few constructive thoughts to offer between washing your car and mowing your grass, but Jaz probably won't buy your game.

GothicGothicness January 8th, 2010 17:56

I am not making this game to sell as many copies as possible.

I want to make a really fun and innovative game. Since it is turn-based I am not expecting people who only like action-rpgs / morrowinds / oblivions to be interessed to play or buy it though.

But I think it will be interesting for anyone who like turn-based RPGs with lots of stats and numbers and those kinds of things, after all I think very few here will consider branching stories and choices a huge negative in such a game/ as long as the strategy and stats part is solid?

However I am asking the RPGWatch crowd a lot of questions, because I think each have a lot of experiance and valued opinions on how to make a really good and fun RPG, even the ones who love action RPGs.

Quote:

A good example is old Sierra's Quest for Glory series. You could play as a mage, complete the game, then start over as a thief and it would be a completely different experience (different gameplay, different approach to puzzles, access to different areas) and then again as a fighter. It's one of the few games (RPG) I've replayed.
Excellent example, both story and gameplay was really different…. those games where kind of short though :P


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 20:39.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch