|
Why is it that RPG developers are taking such a boring storytelling route through dialogue? In fact, why is it that almost all RPG's seem to almost be complete rubbish?
Some RPG's are like Mass Effect, which I simply could not get into. I hate using dialogue choices to drive the story forward. That is not appealing to me. This is boring. Meanwhile, some RPG's are like Oblivion. These are hugely expansive RPG's that I am sure many find fun, but the core story seems to be so detached from the rest of the game it almost feels like it isnt part of the game.
Why cant RPG's be more like Chrono Trigger again? You have the story throughout the game, choices are given via actions that might not be immediately apparent. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed Spec Ops so thoroughly, since games just dont do it like they used to these days. But, hell, I would much rather a more linear story/gameplay like the Final Fantasy games which is a great story paired with solid gameplay over these drab games of late.
I am sorry to fans of the two games that I mentioned, but I simply could not get sucked into these two. Either it was so open ended I feel it hurt the game overall or the gameplay gimmick of choice was just boring (along with the gameplay itself in mass effect).
What is your opinion on the subject of "choice" in games?
|
I think it's fine in Mass Effect, but generally agree that dialog choices are unnecessary. Honestly, the choices you get to make almost never have any consequence at all and you feel like you miss stuff out by having to pick. Some people push the argument that dialog choices and good/evil systems like in ME and KOTOR promote replayability, but honestly, who ever felt playing evil instead of good made another playthrough worth it? If the game is fun enough to play several times, it's a nice quirk, but it isn't going to make you play a game more than once if you were somewhat satisfied by one run.
I agree 100% about Chrono Trigger. Great story and character development, you constantly have the urge to find out what will happen... and no need for any BS choices which only affect minor parts of the story in miniscule ways.
|
The JRPG (linear storytelling, character-focused) versus "Western" RPG [sometimes called WRPG or CRPG] (exploration and choice focused) debate has been around since these two archetypes have been created. It sounds like you aren't interested in games like Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout and Mass Effect. Great! There are tons of other games out there that you could be playing instead!
-Final Fantasy XIII (and XIII-2) are both very linear and have interesting gameplay.
-Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii was one of the best games that came out this year, IMO, though there is a big world to explore you can safely ignore most of it.
-Tales of Vesperia for the 360 is a bit older, but still a great game, especially since there are so few JRPGs on the 360.
The PSN store has tons of the older RPGs if you want to just play those (FFVI, VII,VIII, IX, Vagrant Story, Chrono Cross, Suikoden, etc there are so many to list).
There are so many games out there, rather than complain about X or Y everyone should just look around and their needs will be met by a different title. Maybe off the beaten path a little, but everything is out there.
|
On November 20 2012 07:03 Rayeth wrote:
The JRPG (linear storytelling, character-focused) versus "Western" RPG [sometimes called WRPG or CRPG] (exploration and choice focused) debate has been around since these two archetypes have been created. It sounds like you aren't interested in games like Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout and Mass Effect. Great! There are tons of other games out there that you could be playing instead!
-Final Fantasy XIII (and XIII-2) are both very linear and have interesting gameplay.
-Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii was one of the best games that came out this year, IMO, though there is a big world to explore you can safely ignore most of it.
-Tales of Vesperia for the 360 is a bit older, but still a great game, especially since there are so few JRPGs on the 360.
The PSN store has tons of the older RPGs if you want to just play those (FFVI, VII,VIII, IX, Vagrant Story, Chrono Cross, Suikoden, etc there are so many to list).
There are so many games out there, rather than complain about X or Y everyone should just look around and their needs will be met by a different title. Maybe off the beaten path a little, but everything is out there.
I actually really enjoyed Fallout, it seemed to have more direction than Oblivion. I also liked Bioshock, though I think that the illusion of choice in that game wasnt exactly real choice. I also mention Spec Ops as another example of storytelling that I like, though that is more character focused again.
Also, I am not complaining I just think that it is lazy and uninteresting game mechanics. Oblivion is lazy in that they had this concept for an open world game, but in the end it was too open without enough focus. ME lazy in that they give you choices but it wasnt a fun choice. Instead of killing a person in the storyline, you have to pick a dialogue that says to kill them? Fun.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 20 2012 07:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 07:03 Rayeth wrote:
The JRPG (linear storytelling, character-focused) versus "Western" RPG [sometimes called WRPG or CRPG] (exploration and choice focused) debate has been around since these two archetypes have been created. It sounds like you aren't interested in games like Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout and Mass Effect. Great! There are tons of other games out there that you could be playing instead!
-Final Fantasy XIII (and XIII-2) are both very linear and have interesting gameplay.
-Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii was one of the best games that came out this year, IMO, though there is a big world to explore you can safely ignore most of it.
-Tales of Vesperia for the 360 is a bit older, but still a great game, especially since there are so few JRPGs on the 360.
The PSN store has tons of the older RPGs if you want to just play those (FFVI, VII,VIII, IX, Vagrant Story, Chrono Cross, Suikoden, etc there are so many to list).
There are so many games out there, rather than complain about X or Y everyone should just look around and their needs will be met by a different title. Maybe off the beaten path a little, but everything is out there.
I actually really enjoyed Fallout, it seemed to have more direction than Oblivion. I also liked Bioshock, though I think that the illusion of choice in that game wasnt exactly real choice. I also mention Spec Ops as another example of storytelling that I like, though that is more character focused again. Also, I am not complaining I just think that it is lazy and uninteresting game mechanics. Oblivion is lazy in that they had this concept for an open world game, but in the end it was too open without enough focus. ME lazy in that they give you choices but it wasnt a fun choice. Instead of killing a person in the storyline, you have to pick a dialogue that says to kill them? Fun.
There's nothing lazy in creating a massive open world or having choices be made by dialogue, just different then what you apparently like. Different strokes for different folks.
Though, I will agree that it's disappointing when the choices are but illusions and don't actually effect anything.
|
United States47024 Posts
It would seem that your problem is more with the specific implementation in these games, rather than the mechanic of branched dialogue in general (seeing as you were much more satisfied with Fallout). You're not alone--even among western RPG fans, there are those that criticize Bioware's extensive use of "fake choices" in their more recent games (dialogue options that do not correspond to differing gameplay outcomes and are more or less superfluous)--which have become fairly common in Bioware's games after Baldur's Gate 2, or Bethesda's mediocre-to-downright-awful writing in general.
The branched dialogue mechanic, when well used, allows the player to feel like they are *creating* the story, rather than simply just observing it as they are in a typical linear JRPG story. Games where this is well used include the first 2 Fallout games, Arcanum, and Planescape Torment (BG and BG2's do suffer from some of the Bioware-isms that plague future titles, and from a purely dialogue-based perspective can't be considered good examples of its use). Misuse of the mechanic tends to create games where it feels like the player is simply responding to fake choices that do not produce real gameplay or development, which is what you describe.
|
Have you played Planescape : Torment ?
I think both sides can be good, depending on implementation as they have pros and cons. Mass Effects choices sucks for instance, but Planescape : Torment is a game that relies solely on dialogue choice and its my favorite sinle player game...
|
No apostrophes in plurals you picky dialogue person!
You're also not using great examples for the value of dialogue choices.
|
KotR was a really good RPG in this area because the choices you make really count. Even party members can leave you.
+ Show Spoiler +Well, not entirely. You can choose to go with Bastila or not, influencing your Light Side/Dark Side points by a lot. Even if you were Jesus up until then you could get the Dark Side ending.
As you may already know, Western RPGs are more of the exploration and choice-making kinds of games. JRPGs are focused on character development and storyline. Personally, my favorite is when elements from both are combined because it results in in a deep, engaging game. Still, the exploration bit is kind of fun, but it doesn't fit in some games. Sometimes it can be a bit forced. Same with choices for being forced.
|
On November 20 2012 07:31 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 07:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On November 20 2012 07:03 Rayeth wrote:
The JRPG (linear storytelling, character-focused) versus "Western" RPG [sometimes called WRPG or CRPG] (exploration and choice focused) debate has been around since these two archetypes have been created. It sounds like you aren't interested in games like Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout and Mass Effect. Great! There are tons of other games out there that you could be playing instead!
-Final Fantasy XIII (and XIII-2) are both very linear and have interesting gameplay.
-Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii was one of the best games that came out this year, IMO, though there is a big world to explore you can safely ignore most of it.
-Tales of Vesperia for the 360 is a bit older, but still a great game, especially since there are so few JRPGs on the 360.
The PSN store has tons of the older RPGs if you want to just play those (FFVI, VII,VIII, IX, Vagrant Story, Chrono Cross, Suikoden, etc there are so many to list).
There are so many games out there, rather than complain about X or Y everyone should just look around and their needs will be met by a different title. Maybe off the beaten path a little, but everything is out there.
I actually really enjoyed Fallout, it seemed to have more direction than Oblivion. I also liked Bioshock, though I think that the illusion of choice in that game wasnt exactly real choice. I also mention Spec Ops as another example of storytelling that I like, though that is more character focused again. Also, I am not complaining I just think that it is lazy and uninteresting game mechanics. Oblivion is lazy in that they had this concept for an open world game, but in the end it was too open without enough focus. ME lazy in that they give you choices but it wasnt a fun choice. Instead of killing a person in the storyline, you have to pick a dialogue that says to kill them? Fun. There's nothing lazy in creating a massive open world or having choices be made by dialogue, just different then what you apparently like. Different strokes for different folks. Though, I will agree that it's disappointing when the choices are but illusions and don't actually effect anything.
I disagree. It is relatively easy to create a huge sprawling world. Just look at any MMO (the technical feats in an MMO are different though).
On November 20 2012 07:37 corumjhaelen wrote:
Have you played Planescape : Torment ?
I think both sides can be good, depending on implementation as they have pros and cons. Mass Effects choices sucks for instance, but Planescape : Torment is a game that relies solely on dialogue choice and its my favorite sinle player game...
I havent played planescape, I just figured that given the games popularity that it would be one of the pinnacles of dialogue choice games.
On November 20 2012 07:47 Dfgj wrote:
No apostrophes in plurals you picky dialogue person!
You're also not using great examples for the value of dialogue choices.
I dont understand how grammar has any relation to my distaste for these games.
Also, sorry for a lack of concrete examples outside of mentioning games... I didnt finish playing them because I disliked them.
|
Oh, but thou must.
I think it's pretty easy to point at Chrono Trigger and ask why there aren't more games like that, but even in the SNES era there were plenty of crap money grabbing games. I think if you look hard enough you'll still find the kind of game you want, too.
|
You're all wrong. RPGs involve paper, pencils, polished and enumerated polyhedrons of varying sides, a group of people with character sheets, and extremely free form fun under the supervision of an evil and hated entity called the DM or Storyteller.
Also, get off my lawn.
Seriously, though, a really great game should combine both dialogue choices and actions - one of the reasons I think SW:TOR would make a better single player RPG than an MMO. It could have gone for some vastly divergent game paths.
Also, I agree - Oblivion lacks any significant push for the player to actually find or care about the story.
|
Oblivion is a terrible game and i couldn't play it more than 30 minutes. Having a huge world doesn't help if everything feels pointless. Add some ridiculous mechanics (auto level) and you get one of the most overrated games of all time.
Also it is pretty much retarded to criticize dialog branches if you have not played the games that use it effectively (i.e: good writing and real choices). I mean we all know that the system isn't perfect but that's the best thing we got so far to simulate a conversation.
|
On November 20 2012 07:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 07:03 Rayeth wrote:
The JRPG (linear storytelling, character-focused) versus "Western" RPG [sometimes called WRPG or CRPG] (exploration and choice focused) debate has been around since these two archetypes have been created. It sounds like you aren't interested in games like Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout and Mass Effect. Great! There are tons of other games out there that you could be playing instead!
-Final Fantasy XIII (and XIII-2) are both very linear and have interesting gameplay.
-Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii was one of the best games that came out this year, IMO, though there is a big world to explore you can safely ignore most of it.
-Tales of Vesperia for the 360 is a bit older, but still a great game, especially since there are so few JRPGs on the 360.
The PSN store has tons of the older RPGs if you want to just play those (FFVI, VII,VIII, IX, Vagrant Story, Chrono Cross, Suikoden, etc there are so many to list).
There are so many games out there, rather than complain about X or Y everyone should just look around and their needs will be met by a different title. Maybe off the beaten path a little, but everything is out there.
I actually really enjoyed Fallout, it seemed to have more direction than Oblivion. I also liked Bioshock, though I think that the illusion of choice in that game wasnt exactly real choice. I also mention Spec Ops as another example of storytelling that I like, though that is more character focused again. Also, I am not complaining I just think that it is lazy and uninteresting game mechanics. Oblivion is lazy in that they had this concept for an open world game, but in the end it was too open without enough focus. ME lazy in that they give you choices but it wasnt a fun choice. Instead of killing a person in the storyline, you have to pick a dialogue that says to kill them? Fun.
It's not lazy. Just because you don't enjoy those type of games doesn't mean it's "lazy" at all. It's just something you don't enjoy. The developers created a big world that you could explore and not be restricted at all, that was their goal. Dunno your complaint about it just doesn't make since to me.
There is a reason there are different types of RPG's and not all are the same. Personally I love Mass effect all 3, love oblivion/skyrim.
|
It is lazy because they took the quantity over quality route.
|
Basically, you attribute that Western RPGs with terrible stories have terrible stories because of the dialogue choices mechanic.
In fact though, the writing is just bad.
Just compare the mechanic impemented in KOTOR and then in Mass Effect. it's a textbook example of how to do it against how not to do it. But it doesn't depend on the system, it's purely in the writing.
The dialogue options in recent Bioware titles are annoying not because of their existance, but because of the bad writing surrounding it.
The point I will concede, however, is that a lot of the choices get shoehorned hardcore into "good" and "bad". Again though, not a problem caused by the mechanic, I fully attribute this, again, to bad writing.
Bad writing, man. Bad writing.
|
Well I guess the definition of RPG has morphed beyond just having a character that can level up and use chosen abilities at certain times, now people want to have a greater impact on the world around them and so naturally the story is going to be integrated into how the character talks to certain people (or reacts to certain events). I think its a good thing, but it depends how you go about it.
My problem with companies like Bethesda is that they produce quantity over quality games...their games usually have such a big environment that most of it is really poor quality. Case in point would be Skyrim or Oblivion, most of the quests were drab and meaningless, and so there wasn't much in terms of quality storytelling or meaningful plot development, because its simply too big of a task to undertake when you have that much in the game. Morrowind did a much better job, but it still suffered a lot.
It leads me to believe that the people who enjoy those games derive the most amusement from their imagination rather than the game; they pretend that a character is more realistic than it is, so when it does something silly or gets killed they react to it more seriously than they should. This is the only explanation I can imagine as to why people enjoy these games...either that or they are really, really amused with hacking something to death or shooting fireballs at it hundreds of times; or that they never get tired of traversing the virtually identical dungeons dozens of times, with only slightly varying themes of why you're in those dungeons (i.e. kill the bandits, vampires, beasts, or necromancers over and over again).
Or in skyrim's case kill the nordic undead 1000x times for every dungeon you enter, to collect some special trinket that can be generically replaced with anything else, while occasionally completing a puzzle for 8 year olds. The story is always a total joke...Fallout 3 had the most ridiculous ending I've ever seen (in many ways), Oblivion had *one* cool twist, but everything else was stereotypical hollywood writing, Skyrim of course had a generic epic hero boss fight against a dragon which was easy and lame. I'm forced to play games for children, because that's the only thing left. There's no challenge (doesn't fit with the console game market), very little in terms of thought provoking story let alone conversation, and very little in terms of quality quests.
Its just so...simple, and mundane. I don't understand what the world is coming to when these are hailed as the best RPGs. Have we really descended so far that people no longer remember what quality RPGs were like? I loved Fallout 1 and 2. Now I have to search through independent game makers to see if anyone is doing something similar. Thankfully I have found at least one game that looks really promising, namely Underrail. The first Dragon Age was also an example of a company going in the right direction, not vapid free form exploration in a world devoid of meaningful content.
I'm getting so bitter 
|
You should play Planescape: Torment if you think dialogue can't be done well.
|
You should play Planescape: Torment, the Chrono Trigger of dialogue choices.
|
Vampire: the masquerade - bloodlines + bugfix patches = Probably one of the best WRPGs ever made.
Give that a spin and see if you can stomach that.
|
I read parts of this thread last week and was too busy to reply so I thought I'd come back and give my thoughts.
+ Show Spoiler +On November 20 2012 10:54 radscorpion9 wrote:Well I guess the definition of RPG has morphed beyond just having a character that can level up and use chosen abilities at certain times, now people want to have a greater impact on the world around them and so naturally the story is going to be integrated into how the character talks to certain people (or reacts to certain events). I think its a good thing, but it depends how you go about it. My problem with companies like Bethesda is that they produce quantity over quality games...their games usually have such a big environment that most of it is really poor quality. Case in point would be Skyrim or Oblivion, most of the quests were drab and meaningless, and so there wasn't much in terms of quality storytelling or meaningful plot development, because its simply too big of a task to undertake when you have that much in the game. Morrowind did a much better job, but it still suffered a lot. It leads me to believe that the people who enjoy those games derive the most amusement from their imagination rather than the game; they pretend that a character is more realistic than it is, so when it does something silly or gets killed they react to it more seriously than they should. This is the only explanation I can imagine as to why people enjoy these games...either that or they are really, really amused with hacking something to death or shooting fireballs at it hundreds of times; or that they never get tired of traversing the virtually identical dungeons dozens of times, with only slightly varying themes of why you're in those dungeons (i.e. kill the bandits, vampires, beasts, or necromancers over and over again). Or in skyrim's case kill the nordic undead 1000x times for every dungeon you enter, to collect some special trinket that can be generically replaced with anything else, while occasionally completing a puzzle for 8 year olds. The story is always a total joke...Fallout 3 had the most ridiculous ending I've ever seen (in many ways), Oblivion had *one* cool twist, but everything else was stereotypical hollywood writing, Skyrim of course had a generic epic hero boss fight against a dragon which was easy and lame. I'm forced to play games for children, because that's the only thing left. There's no challenge (doesn't fit with the console game market), very little in terms of thought provoking story let alone conversation, and very little in terms of quality quests. Its just so...simple, and mundane. I don't understand what the world is coming to when these are hailed as the best RPGs. Have we really descended so far that people no longer remember what quality RPGs were like? I loved Fallout 1 and 2. Now I have to search through independent game makers to see if anyone is doing something similar. Thankfully I have found at least one game that looks really promising, namely Underrail. The first Dragon Age was also an example of a company going in the right direction, not vapid free form exploration in a world devoid of meaningful content. I'm getting so bitter
I find myself relating to this post quite a lot. I tend to play most single player games these days (and probably did as a younger person also) in the hopes of being presented with an engaging storyline, whether it is a fantasy or space opera setting. Unfortunately for me, RPGs these days seem to be focusing more and more on 'how big can I make my world' and 'how much stuff (quests, dialogue, items) can I toss in' that they seem to forget that unless there is a lot work put into these additions, they end up being incredibly superficial and, ultimately, shallow.
I struggle to understand how anyone really gives a fuck that game X provides you with Y hours of gameplay when that gameplay is made up of the same repeated fetch/kill quests (handed out by characters who are completely irrelevant to the overall storyline) that take place in the same rehashed dungeons populated by the same bloody enemies that perhaps change skins every now and again. I was sucked in by the reviews, the amount of things to do and the claims of choice/freedom made in relation to games like Oblivion and Skyrim and regrettably bought the damn games. But I have to wonder what the point of this freedom is when it is all meaningless illusion, and insignificant to the actual storyline. It certainly doesn't help when the gameplay for these types of games is often slow, clunky and repetitive either.
I don't hate all games that are open world, sandbox affairs. But the moment they sacrifice a compelling, driving storyline and/or fun, varied gameplay, for the sake of more things to waste time on, is the moment I lose all interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
