The Ultimate Choice in RPGs: - Gameplay

@Gamasutra Felipe Pepe takes a look at the history of crpg 'choices'.

The history of CRPG choices;
or I how really need to learn how to be concise in these articles

In the beginning, there was no choice. At least, not as we think of them today.

While tabletop RPGs rely on the moment-to-moment choice of the players -"I try to climb down the cliff",
"I ask the sage about the scroll", "I ATTACK THE ORC!", etc - CRPGs at first had a limited scope.

In the late 70's / early 80's, the only real choice in CRPGs was character/party build.

You would create a blob of stats, and then your ImaginationTM would transform them into "Sir Isaac Darkwood, leader of the band of adventurers who just defeated the evil Werdna in glorious combat!"

Then Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar (1985) came, and now HOW you played matter - if a beggar asks for money and you give him $10, your compassion goes up. And there were many events like that:

However, while the game does offers some choices, they are more like a game-wide puzzle - you need to pick the correct options and act as a true Avatar of Virtue to finish the game. You're free to play as an asshole, but you won't ever advance the game like that.

More information.

I love free-form design to be honest, its completely anothre level

like go anywhere, do anything, whenever you want.

WTF
Gameplay?

RPG needs only one thing - proper UI. It doesn't have to be spectacular like in D:OS, just make it proper. It mustn't be Neptunia@PC horror.
Sure, if it's a hybrid like ME or DX, gameplay also matters, but it's not RPG part that asks for gameplay, it's action/stealth/etc part that needs a good gameplay.

getting past the title, reading the article…

Another WTF.
Choices (and consequences) are not gameplay. Did title from another article got mixed here by some error?
C&C supposed to be the pinnacle of any RPG, a reason for several replays just to experience different paths and uncover every hidden bit possible. For some odd reason, nonRPGs are trying to add the same thing - and IMO so far all failed. The recent example is Far Cry 4 where not only the game is boring as hell but choices you make there are pretty much idiotic, not fun at all and serve no purpose but to be used as marketing material.

I remember vividly when Ultima IV was released, it was HUGE. It was a revolutionary product for it's time. I do believe it was the first game where character creation was based on a user decision flow, and with the virtue system in place, choices did really matter in-game.

This write up started well with the historical evolution of RPGs where there was very few choices outside character/build at that start and then some branching out to include more quest resolution options appeared, but then he went full "BioWare is to blame for RPGs not having choices that matters" halfway through and I went "where did the logic go??".

BioWare game design didn't change much since BG1 when it come to choices and storytelling outside of moving to cinematic which means reduction in options because text cost a lot less than VO+cutscenes to make (text also takes less time to make). In fact, DA2 not reacting to a player mage is something that was cut because of they didn't have the time to implement it. Also, their questing always focused mostly on combat resolution for quests usually forcing you to kill everyone until you go to the boss to get the peaceful resolution and they have lead designers with the weird idea that every path should have at least one boss fight (Sovereigned Saren was just continuity really).

Really, BioWare are still making RPG (storywise) like the majority of them were made in the 90s, just with VO and cutscenes and that's why choices are limited to dialog morality and character/builds. BioWare design didn't become the norm, it was the norm before the studio existed. Ultima IV and Fallout were exceptions back then, not the norm.

In fact, the real conclusion of that opinion piece is that going by the historical RPGs C&C outside character builds and morality dialog choices have been a very rare thing since the start of the genre. Which makes you wonder how this idea that C&C that isn't character builds and morality is the most important part of an RPGs started when just quest having multiple resolution is such a rare thing in the genre…

Choice in CRPGs has always been a bit of an illusion. It's going to take a big leap in AI to bring them up to the level of the PnP game.

Choice in CRPGs has always been a bit of an illusion. It's going to take a big leap in AI to bring them up to the level of the PnP game.

Its what Bethtodd is trying to do with Radiant garbage in TES/FO…. replacing writers and artists with algorithms, much cheaper

Originally Posted by rjshae
Choice in CRPGs has always been a bit of an illusion. It's going to take a big leap in AI to bring them up to the level of the PnP game.

It will never reach it, but that's OK. If you want PnP RPGs, just play them. I agree with Felipe Pepe in some points. Choice in how do you play is very important. I really like how Fallout 1 and 2 do it and, even if I like Bioware games (and I really like them until Mass Effect 2), I find them lacking in gameplay choices. I played Tyranny recently and found it to be a pretty cool game, but on second playthrough, it really bothered me how gameplay is just THE SAME. The fights are almost the same, pretty much nothing changes, except the story (first I helped the Disfavored and them the Rebels).

In a lot of crpg's choices are "spelled out" for you…boost charisma/speechcraft and just steamroll through the game by picking appropriate dialogue options.
People typically mistake "wide" for "deep".
Would love to see a Hitman style rpg, instead… where your own character development allows different opportunities for real time interactivity with environment and available assets and allows how to complete missions/quests.
RPG's usually fall into rigid "can or can't", with a very clear indication for the player available options and % of success.

I don't want to see episodic Hitman style.
Gimme a complete package right now and then proceed to work on it's sequel instead of milking DLC. Or go make phonescams.

Originally Posted by azarhal
This write up started well with the historical evolution of RPGs where there was very few choices outside character/build at that start and then some branching out to include more quest resolution options appeared, but then he went full "BioWare is to blame for RPGs not having choices that matters" halfway through and I went "where did the logic go??".

BioWare game design didn't change much since BG1 when it come to choices and storytelling outside of moving to cinematic which means reduction in options because text cost a lot less than VO+cutscenes to make (text also takes less time to make). In fact, DA2 not reacting to a player mage is something that was cut because of they didn't have the time to implement it. Also, their questing always focused mostly on combat resolution for quests usually forcing you to kill everyone until you go to the boss to get the peaceful resolution and they have lead designers with the weird idea that every path should have at least one boss fight (Sovereigned Saren was just continuity really).

Really, BioWare are still making RPG (storywise) like the majority of them were made in the 90s, just with VO and cutscenes and that's why choices are limited to dialog morality and character/builds. BioWare design didn't become the norm, it was the norm before the studio existed. Ultima IV and Fallout were exceptions back then, not the norm.

In fact, the real conclusion of that opinion piece is that going by the historical RPGs C&C outside character builds and morality dialog choices have been a very rare thing since the start of the genre. Which makes you wonder how this idea that C&C that isn't character builds and morality is the most important part of an RPGs started when just quest having multiple resolution is such a rare thing in the genre…

So some RPGs did something really awesome, but because it was rare we can't ask other games to do it again? What kind of self-defeating logic is that?

And BioWare's style wasn't the norm. There was no norm, RPGs were trying all crazy kind of things: Quest for Glory, Tunnels & Trolls, Fallout, Jagged Alliance 2, Wizardry VII, Deus Ex, M&M VII, etc… they all had their own style. The problem is that BioWare kept going but everyone else vanished, making BioWare the norm.

Originally Posted by felipepepe
So some RPGs did something really awesome, but because it was rare we can't ask other games to do it again? What kind of self-defeating logic is that?

Originally Posted by luj1
I love free-form design to be honest, its completely anothre level

like go anywhere, do anything, whenever you want.

Hmm. But then you have games like Gothic vs. TES series design. One uses level-scaling to basically make the whole game "constantly challenging" while the other has hand-placed design and encounters.

I like going anywhere, doing anything, too, but I like it to be somewhat constrained and meaningful. So if I venture far from the road, there's some crazy monster or tough dungeon there that I know I can come back later and will have something good.

There are also many games that only give you the illusion of choice. It doesn't matter if you take the red or the blue pill - the outcome is essentially the same. Choices should have rewards or they should have consequences.

Originally Posted by felipepepe
So some RPGs did something really awesome, but because it was rare we can't ask other games to do it again? What kind of self-defeating logic is that?

Where does I say that?

I am asking why are people asking for it so much now when it didn't seem to matter much before going by historical empirical data of RPGs made. Even developers go around claiming RPG are about story C&C these days when the genre clearly started as character builds choices with morality/quest resolution choices coming later and always a rare thing outside a few series.

While writing you never realized that the expectation of what should be in a RPG changed these last few years? Because it did and it didn't happen because people suddenly remembered that Ultima IV, Fallout and Deus Ex released over 15 years ago.

Originally Posted by felipepepe
And BioWare's style wasn't the norm. There was no norm, RPGs were trying all crazy kind of things: Quest for Glory, Tunnels & Trolls, Fallout, Jagged Alliance 2, Wizardry VII, Deus Ex, M&M VII, etc… they all had their own style. The problem is that BioWare kept going but everyone else vanished, making BioWare the norm.

The fact that everyone vanished doesn't change that BioWare kept the same C&C design that existed when everyone was around. Gameplay style have nothing to do with C&C. The same C&C (kill or not a NPC for example) can be done via text or direct gameplay, the choice is just presented differently.

You also seems to be mixing up player agency and C&C. Deus Ex has great player agency, but not much choices and even less consequences.

"choices matters"
storytelling and immersion before choices, I tend to get maximum angst over choices and using google to choose for me. (with the outcome that I want)

Choices for flavour, spend your money on immersion and storytelling
C

Originally Posted by azarhal
Where does I say that?

I am asking why are people asking for it so much now when it didn't seem to matter much before going by historical empirical data of RPGs made. Even developers go around claiming RPG are about story C&C these days when the genre clearly started as character builds choices with morality/quest resolution choices coming later and always a rare thing outside a few series.

While writing you never realized that the expectation of what should be in a RPG changed these last few years? Because it did and it didn't happen because people suddenly remembered that Ultima IV, Fallout and Deus Ex released over 15 years ago.

I actually wrote an entire section on how BioWare being the only brand of "choice heavy RPG" through the 2000's changed everyone's expectations.

That doesn't mean that the current style is the best one, and that I can't ask for the superior style of games like Fallout and Deus Ex. I don't understand why that's so shocking to you.

The fact that everyone vanished doesn't change that BioWare kept the same C&C design that existed when everyone was around. Gameplay style have nothing to do with C&C. The same C&C (kill or not a NPC for example) can be done via text or direct gameplay, the choice is just presented differently.

You also seems to be mixing up player agency and C&C. Deus Ex has great player agency, but not much choices and even less consequences.

You're completely missing the point.

Both player agency (how you can act) and C&C (how the game reacts) come from giving players choice on how to act. And both can be presented via direct gameplay or dialog.

Shooting Anne Navarre is a choice - made via gameplay, not by picking a option on a list. That's why it's a much more interesting approach - players must think of it themselves.

Deus Ex is known for giving players a lot a agency via gameplay, but Age of Decadence does the same mostly via dialog - as well as its CYOA segments like breaking into the palace.

The problem is that the only action most modern RPGs allow you to change is your dialog. You're going to have to visit the same places, kill the same enemies and talk to the same people - all you can change is what you tell them.

And that fucking sucks.

Then maybe you should write a book about it, pepe. Would be codex's bestseller.

I wouldn't mind more RPGs with more interactive choices and gameplay moments.

Realms of Arkania, for example. If you had certain inventory items (a rope, rope ladder, grappling hook, etc.), you could do different things and there were random events as well. This is more of an "interactive gameplay" type choice, but it is really fun because there are several outcomes for each scenario.

For example, you could come across a dark pit in a dungeon. If you have a rope ladder, you could possibly climb down with it. Don't have a rope ladder? Test your Acrobatics (or whatever it's called in the game) skill and see if you can shimmy down. Or, throw a rock down and hear how far it is down. Depending on different factors and even luck, anything could happen. You could walk away with a nice treasure or fall and die, break a leg, etc. Neat stuff.

But in terms of dialogue and stuff, I enjoy having different approaches to quests and scenarios. I don't mind the dialogue options, but there should be several ways to approach a quest in a good RPG with a lot of skills and stat interactions. Games like Arcanum and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines do a good job of that, and even in Morrowind you had some level of choice as to how to deal with certain situations.

I don't think the situation is so bleak, though. I don't play modern BioWare games much and there are plenty of older RPGs as well as some cool new ones that do the traditional CRPG thing well. Plenty of games out there for all tastes.

Originally Posted by felipepepe
I actually wrote an entire section on how BioWare being the only brand of "choice heavy RPG" through the 2000's changed everyone's expectations.

That doesn't mean that the current style is the best one, and that I can't ask for the superior style of games like Fallout and Deus Ex. I don't understand why that's so shocking to you.

The expectation I see everywhere (including the BSN, the dead official one or unofficial one) is exactly what you are asking for: RPG should have player agency, should have quest resolution options, should have choices that matters.

It is not "I expect a BioWare style RPGs with cosmetic choices through dialoges" and that's even for BioWare games, they keep getting backlashes since DA2 for their lack of direct gameplay player agency and superficial choices. For some reasons, it wasn't a problem before 2011 though.