1
Discussions / Re: RPG Discussion Thread
« on: September 05, 2014, 01:04:21 pm »I think the easiest way for me to decide what distinguishes a good RPG from a bad one is to compare games like Fallout with games like Oblivion from Bethesda.
Oblivion didn't have any meaningful choices; first of all, I'm not even sure if you had any choices. But even the things you did do in certain guilds (like the mages guild) made (in almost all cases) no difference in the world. Its just a series of quests that you complete, and maybe you get to level up your character a bit, but ultimately it feels like the game you're playing is just an empty, meaningless world where you just do quest after quest...but there is nothing that is really driving you at all except the potential for acquiring a new spell, or finding new armor.
Also, at least in the RPGs that I like to play, combat has to be interesting and challenging. In Oblivion it was as simple as it could possibly be, and there weren't really any tactics to speak of. You just mash your slash button, and block when you're being hit. Or you cast spells and run around in a circle. I'll admit there may be some complexity added in when you summon minions, but its not much.
Finally the world has to be varied and interesting, with a number of settings and stories. I think I would sum up Oblivion as quantity over quality - it basically just repeats the same type of dungeons over and over again, with barely any meaningful change between them. The whole game feels like its a really tiresome grind, doing the same things over and over again, to access skills that are fun but not really worth the gameplay. Part of this is also the depth of characters around you; in Oblivion there is barely any meaningful dialogue; its typically one or two sentences, and its almost always "epic" dialogue that has no really depth to it except the same heroic vibe; i.e. "FOR HONOUR!!", etc.
The difference in a game like Fallout is that it is the opposite of Oblivion in all of these areas. First of all you have the ability to actually make choices; secondly, the quests have a clear influence on the world and how people perceive you, and what kinds of quests you are eligible for based on your decisions.
Combat is very tactical, due to the turn based nature of the game, there are tradeoffs depending on what weapons you use (melee, smg, assault, sniper, ammo type), positioning (fire and hide, fight in a corridor) The aimed shot system allows for a great variety of shots that can slow your enemy down (legs), cripple them (arms), or blind them (eyes). Grenades could also be used to stun or damage a group. I think it at least had a lot more variety.
The atmosphere was great, the locations were varied and interesting (from the remains of a pre-war research facility that was the center of a nuclear bomb attack, to a gun manufacturing town surrounding by a moat of radioactive sludge). The conversations involved paragraphs, and some required you to pay attention and think carefully about your answers. All of this created a rich game in which I could have the pleasure of leveling up my character, and applying my skills to influence the world around me.
So I guess to summarize, it has to have meaningful choice and consequence, engaging combat, and an interesting atmosphere and story that you can replay from different angles. I at least like the idea Bethesda repeatedly brings up of "radiant AI" but which horribly fails nearly every time, and one day I think we can create truly emergent game play and AI. But for now I really enjoy a deep, well-crafted story more than a big, stale, repetitive playground where I fight the same types of foes over and over again for no real reason.
Fallout hasnt choices too, only only cosmetic options, which having no effect in result.
And there is many games which said we have many optionst, but in fact, they lie. For example Mass effect, Dragon age, L.A. Noir. In result, every choice leads to the same result...