The center of the universe

I agree with the original post. Save-the-world is pretty tiresome.

With Dragon Age for instance I kept thinking that they should have cut out the Darkspawn and just have made it about the different nobles battling for power in Ferelden. The whole huge-evil-allpowerful-force-that-can-still-beaten-in-time-for-the-endgame is quite boring. I'd really like to play a crpg about a bunch of different people/factions with their own interets. Not good or bad. Just let me roam around and choose who I want to help out and how I want to do it.

I'm also quite tired of battling monsters. Another lich? Yawn... Dragon? Yawn... Random big insect? Yawn... Battling humans is just more fun. Well I guess humaniods that use weapons is a better description.

Lemonhead said:

...
I'm also quite tired of battling monsters. Another lich? Yawn… Dragon? Yawn… Random big insect? Yawn… Battling humans is just more fun. Well I guess humaniods that use weapons is a better description.

Click to expand...

Or:
Another human? Yawn.
Another human? Yawn.
Another human? Yawn.
Another human? Yawn.
...

But, being serious for once, I can see your point, at least if the opponent behaves like a human. Adds to the challenge.

However, I still prefer aliens, monsters, ghosts.... When it comes to shooters and such - I avoid games like Wolfenstein or some WW2 simulator. Not that I have anything against shooting humans in games, quite a number of wasteland mercs can testify to that, ... eh .. they can't any longer. But non humanoids are more fun.

Not too happy about killing dragons, though.

Pibbur Dragon
-==UDIC==-

I tghink, the point might be rather this :

Another cliché? Yawn.
Another cliché? Yawn.
Another cliché? Yawn.
Another cliché? Yawn.

DArtagnan said:

I think that's kind of my issue…

Developers often think in these extremes.

Either he's a hero or he's a "schlub"!?!?

Click to expand...

Do they? That seems awfully simplistic. In reality, there are many possibilities in between hero and villain.

I mean, most of us here in the real world have the capacity to become both heroes or a waste of space. It's more about our choices, and what we do with what we have. In fact, I think most of us HAVE been a bit heroic, and we've wasted our lives as well. Don't you?

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely.

I think there's a strain in human nature that yearns for the heroic story (must be, there are so many of them). You know you want to be a hero, even if only to yourself (or perhaps especially). Or maybe I should just speak for myself — I want a hero in my stories. I don't want to play as an ordinary guy doing ordinary activities. Else I'd be playing The Sims…

I just want the opportunity to play around in a world, where there are no real consequences - but I want them simulated all the same

Maybe it's just that I find the concept of a hero too far-fetched and I could never identify with the cliché version of such a character.

Not sure why, and I've seen my share of Hollywood crap - and yet I just don't buy into that ridiculous image of the near-perfect being with only minor flaws.

Click to expand...

Completely agree with you here. That has been one of my gripes for years. The cookie cutter, 2-d muscular handsome hero (Gears with its steroid version) saving the day. Bleh, sick of it. At least we had Gordon Freeman.

I'm not looking for a game so I can escape reality entirely. I suppose that's the difference. I'm much more into experimenting with reality - or creating an alternate version of it - where I can try out what I could never try in real life. The opportunity to play with magic or science - without letting go of reality entirely.

Click to expand...

Sounds fun. What game comes closest, so far?

Of the ones I've played, just Rockstar's games (RDR, GTA) come to mind. No magic in those, though.

I guess what I like about fighting humaniods is that there is usually more strategy involved in defeating them. I like the whole parry, thrust, dodge and swing that comes with fighting someone with a sword/axe/spear and shield when it comes to fantasy. If it's a rpg where you play solo I find it rewarding to play those battles.

When it comes to party based rpgs some of my most memorable fights are from Baldurs Gate where your party had to fight against another party made up of fighter/mage/ranger/theif/cleric/whatever. Beating that kind of foe seems more rewarding to me than beating another monster.

Anderson said:

Do they? That seems awfully simplistic. In reality, there are many possibilities in between hero and villain.

Click to expand...

No, I mean they often go for the hero character - because the alternative seems to be the opposite, in their minds.

Yes, absolutely.

I think there's a strain in human nature that yearns for the heroic story (must be, there are so many of them). You know you want to be a hero, even if only to yourself (or perhaps especially). Or maybe I should just speak for myself — I want a hero in my stories. I don't want to play as an ordinary guy doing ordinary activities. Else I'd be playing The Sims…

Click to expand...

Ordinary guy in a fantasy world?

I guess I'm not being clear. I'm not talking about going to work and doing dishes, here.

I'm just talking about having the opportunity to "shape my own fate", without having to be a super hero, and without having to defeat gods or mega powerful beings.

Naturally, there would be figthing and magic - it just wouldn't be completely over the top. More like Tolkien than Bioware - if you will.

Completely agree with you here. That has been one of my gripes for years. The cookie cutter, 2-d muscular handsome hero (Gears with its steroid version) saving the day. Bleh, sick of it. At least we had Gordon Freeman.

Click to expand...

Except Freeman was completely unbelievable in terms of what he did versus being an engineer/nerd type character

Sounds fun. What game comes closest, so far?

Click to expand...

I don't know that I have a favorite. I guess I just like being vulnerable, and I like having a story I can see happening in reality - if technology/circumstances were the same. Where people behave like I recognise from reality, and they're not angelic or evil - just because.

Bioforge and System Shock are great examples of sci-fi environments, where I didn't feel like a superhero - and where my character wasn't the typical bad-ass without a good underpinning to support it.

In terms of fantasy, I think Gothic is a good example - even though you ARE a hero. At least you're very vulnerable for the most part, and much of the story deals with plausible characters and motives. I guess I don't mind that it ends with a traditional "super fight", because that's only a small part of the game.

Of the ones I've played, just Rockstar's games (RDR, GTA) come to mind. No magic in those, though.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those games are pretty good in this particular way.

Lemonhead said:

When it comes to party based rpgs some of my most memorable fights are from Baldurs Gate where your party had to fight against another party made up of fighter/mage/ranger/theif/cleric/whatever. Beating that kind of foe seems more rewarding to me than beating another monster.

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember that, too.

In Startrail, the party also had to fight other parties at one point, which were almost identical to the own one.

I want(ed) to create a Wild West cRPG similar to what you describe, where, rather than being the centre of the universe, you're one of any type of character -- settler/homesteader, prospector, First Nations warrior, law man, outlaw, bar owner, prostitute, etc. Perhaps there'd be a story or more likely it'd be a "choose your own adventure" style similar to Mount and Blade.

The key would be having a living, breathing world with plausible interactions and an overarching need to survive, no matter what your preferred role. Something like "Red Dead Redemption: The RPG" but where you can influence the world around you. So, where RDR's Mexico section had two factions but never really let you properly choose between them, you would have that choice in the RPG -- if you even decided to take part.

Similarly, on a smaller scale, take RDR's random encounters where you were tasked with helping a random stranger. If you're a lawman, the choice might not be a difficult one; but if you're just a prospector or a farmer, you could be risking your livelihood for someone you've never met. There is a lot of potential to be the centre of your own world and to influence the bigger picture as much or as little as you want. That would be my ideal scenario, anyway.

Yes. Western RPGs have never been made for the PC right now, although there do exist pen & paper systems for this kind of setting.

Western games are overall still kind of rare. There are several shooters, but not many. And outside of the shooters genre, it's practically nonexistent. Apart from the "Desperados" games by Spellbound :

isometric view : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desperados:_Wanted_Dead_or_Alive
in 3D : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desperados_2:_Cooper's_Revenge

I heartily agree with this post.

I'm almost always more intrigued at the beginnings of CRPGs. Yes, there's the freshness factor. But I also like some simplicity and a feeling of being less than super powerful. I start to lose interest when abilities become super powered, even when enemies have scaled to match.

I really wish someone would create an RPG that's a base engine where you can play modules. Sort of like Neverwinter Nights, but minus the multi-player crap.

DArtagnan said:

I guess I'm not being clear. I'm not talking about going to work and doing dishes, here.

I'm just talking about having the opportunity to "shape my own fate", without having to be a super hero, and without having to defeat gods or mega powerful beings.

Naturally, there would be figthing and magic - it just wouldn't be completely over the top. More like Tolkien than Bioware - if you will.

Click to expand...

Oh okay, I gotcha. Ordinary hero rather than Super hero. I like that. I wish we had games like that, too.

At first I thought you meant non-hero, but you didn't. You just meant non-Super hero.

My favorite part of open world RPGs is the beginning, when you're weak and vulnerable. I agree with you about that part of RPGs.

I just like being vulnerable

Click to expand...

and I like having a story I can see happening in reality - if technology/circumstances were the same. Where people behave like I recognise from reality, and they're not angelic or evil - just because.

Bioforge and System Shock are great examples of sci-fi environments, where I didn't feel like a superhero - and where my character wasn't the typical bad-ass without a good underpinning to support it.

Click to expand...

Haven't played either of those myself. I think of Bioshock or Deus Ex: Invisible War.

In terms of fantasy, I think Gothic is a good example - even though you ARE a hero. At least you're very vulnerable for the most part, and much of the story deals with plausible characters and motives. I guess I don't mind that it ends with a traditional "super fight", because that's only a small part of the game.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I see what you mean.

Haven't played either of those myself. I think of Bioshock or Deus Ex: Invisible War.

Click to expand...

That hurts man

You're talking about games that aren't a tenth of what their prequels were, back in the day!

Ovenall said:

I heartily agree with this post.

I'm almost always more intrigued at the beginnings of CRPGs. Yes, there's the freshness factor. But I also like some simplicity and a feeling of being less than super powerful. I start to lose interest when abilities become super powered, even when enemies have scaled to match.

I really wish someone would create an RPG that's a base engine where you can play modules. Sort of like Neverwinter Nights, but minus the multi-player crap.

Click to expand...

Playing multiplayer is living life at its fullest!

DArtagnan said:

Playing multiplayer is living life at its fullest!

Click to expand...

Maybe. But this is no argument for those who simply do not desire to play multiplayer.

"Real" Adventure games have no multiplayer, either. They're a totally different thing, where you have all time of the world, no action, no pressure to go forward, just sit there, enjoying the game, and solve riddles. MP would be missing the point there, imho. Although … co-op would be interesting.

And some people just play RPGs because of that. They don't want any pressure. They just want to enjoy a game.

It would be escapism at its fullest. Like reading a really good book.
MP only distracts from that.

I don't play multi-player. It's simply my preference and reality of time management.

What I meant is that in my opinion, Neverwinter Nights got hamstrung by having to include all the MP usability and elements. Only so much work gets put into a product. When a big chunk of that work is simply to make MP possible, the game suffers in other areas. NWN tried too hard to re-create tabletop, and the game experience was lacking as a result. An interesting and ambitious experiment, but not a successful one, IMO.

My dream RPG is a system that's a game engine where the player buys, installs and plays "modules" using it as a base. These would be anything from small, hour-long adventures to long extended save-the-world stuff. Things are kind of headed this way with all the DLC these days, but games are still sold as one giant (usually bloated with filler) game, after which small add-ons are dribbled out, often with the same background characters, etc.

Just throwing that out there. There's probably a hundred marketing reasons why it'll never happen.

Ovenall said:

I don't play multi-player. It's simply my preference and reality of time management.

What I meant is that in my opinion, Neverwinter Nights got hamstrung by having to include all the MP usability and elements. Only so much work gets put into a product. When a big chunk of that work is simply to make MP possible, the game suffers in other areas. NWN tried too hard to re-create tabletop, and the game experience was lacking as a result. An interesting and ambitious experiment, but not a successful one, IMO.

Click to expand...

Not successful?

Are you aware of how many mods are out for it?

I would never have played it, if it wasn't for multiplayer. I think it's one of THE best games in existence, BECAUSE of multiplayer.

They planned for it from the beginning. If anything, they should have focused on that - instead of creating that bland and crappy campaign. Work out the kinks and bugs in the MP/DM system

So, such is how we differ.

But I find that cooperative multiplayer is the best way of experiencing a game, as it's both a social experience AND a gaming experience - and everyone gets to enjoy it.

Actually, I like the 'growing into superpowered' thing a lot. At the start of the game I've got just a few options so I can learn them well. As the game goes along I get more and more spells/guns/melee moves/magic arrows/whatever to use in my battles and I'm fighting enemies where I'll need to use some of the more unique ones together with some strategy to win.

What doesn't work so well with me is growing to be super powered with the same powers. If I'm not getting new types of spells/guns/…. but instead am just getting stronger versions of the same thing, then I'll start to get bored. The battles are just the same thing with bigger numbers flying around and more impressive names for everything.

It is pretty fun to be the little guy trying to win out against the knight. But it's also pretty fun to be the knight that wins out against the dragon, or the dragon that defeats the demi-god, or the demi-god that takes on the whole pantheon. Just set me up in a situation where it looks like I really can't win with the tools I've been given, then show me that I can win without completely blowing the plausibility and I'm happy.

I'd really like to play a crpg about a bunch of different people/factions with their own interets. Not good or bad. Just let me roam around and choose who I want to help out and how I want to do it.

Click to expand...

This is why I'm excited about Age of Decadence. It sounds like exactly, this kind of game.

Ovenall said:

My dream RPG is a system that's a game engine where the player buys, installs and plays "modules" using it as a base.

Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like NWN to me.

Alrik: Yes, it does. However, I think NWN kind of sucked because so much of it was devoted to multi-player, which I don't do.

Yes, a better version of NWN - minus multi-player - is what I would like to see most. NWN2 doesn't cut it either.