KoA: Reckoning - A "Nerd's RPG" @ IGN

Originally Posted by Fantasm
Is there really no room for different types of RPGs? Do we really need everything to be one-size-fits-all?
…
If there were no games being made with heavy C&C, then I can see why folks would be up in arms. But the market is providing both styles, and I think that's great.

It's not that so much as it is the derogatory way the article refers to C&C that do cut off content. It frames it as a very negative thing instead of just a different way of doing things. I think that is what is setting people off.

For me personally, the choices are more meaningful if I am cut off from some options in making the choice no matter which I make. Some people want to be able to do it all in one playthrough. I get that. Just don't put those of us down who prefer the other option.

Originally Posted by Motoki
It's not that so much as it is the derogatory way the article refers to C&C that do cut of content. It frames it as a very negative thing instead of just a different way of doing things. I think that is what is setting people off.

Personally, I would blame that on the author's biases, and not necessarily on the game itself.

But why must anyone see all the content? I am 47 and don't have time to play games many times through. I see the content I see the way I play the game. So I don't get to see it all. I would rather have some choices have more meaning, and feel like I am seeing my own characters path through the world then just have everything open. I guess I don't follow the "I must have it ALL" philosophy.

EDIT: I do agree games should be different, of course, but I guess I am more attached to RPG's with lots of choices and some basic common sense … like some of the examples given in Oblivion on the factions just don't really make much sense.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
But why must anyone see all the content?

Because that's the most efficient use of resources. Each zot spent on content that not everyone will see is a zot that could be used making the common content better.

Ah well I can see that but I still disagree. As I consider the very fact that you are making content dependent on choices as a way of making the overall content [i.e. the game itself] of the game actually better. By removing those consequences you are making the common content worse, not better.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
Hell, if they have to choose something modern, The Witcher franchise completely blows ME out of the water in the category of choice.

Hell, if they have to choose something modern, Alpha Protocol completely blows ME AND The Witcher franchise out of the water in the category of choice.

I don't want to see everything in one go. I want an actual choice in what I will see. Maybe I'll never see everything and that's just fine with me. I made my choice on what I did want to see and do.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
I don't want to see everything in one go. I want an actual choice in what I will see. Maybe I'll never see everything and that's just fine with me. I made my choice on what I did want to see and do.

Exactly. I tend to not replay a lot of RPGs now, but I do expect my decisions to give me a pathway that feels somewhat tailor-made for my character. I know the monetary reasons for not going this route; Bioware, for example, has stated more than once that they find no value in shielding elements of the game from players. But if you really are providing a path that everyone will see why not just make a cinematic adventure game with RPG stats, which (I suppose) is what Bioware is essentially doing now anyway.