I don't like this method. I am in full favor of an intricate plot that the PC can be part of (preferably is part of), but as for locations [and encounters] I would much rather the game have some major locations (like this dungeon with a Lich in it) that are never pushed, prodded, or presented ~at all; Such that the PC might stumble upon them, or go looking for them, or even be taken to them (by force... IE. abducted)... but that the Player can play through to the end ( Or at least a long, long time in TES :meh:), never having found it at all, not even once ~in years of play. Then perhaps they find it one day and its a really cool surprise. I have even found things in Fallout 2 that I missed in the eight years prior.

* Problem is that game developers for a single player game should [ideally IMO] design the game to assemble the world and uniquely generate any puzzle answers upon install, (so that every player's install is different); and have the game pick only a percentage of the whole for the world it creates; (Meaning... say 80% of possible areas and encounters, the rest maybe popping up for a different PC).

** And for those that actually have interest in Achievements, such areas would provide some that no one else can get without discovering the places on their own ~if they are even there. :shrug:

I think you might be misunderstanding what I am talking about.

When developers spend the time to make some sort of large set-piece location, like a town with a distinct look, or a named character with a lot of backstory, they're going to want to make sure that they don't have to do that 800 times over in case the player locks himself out of the one plot point that would have happened at that location, or the one place where they would have had a conversation with that character.

That is, right now, whether you side with Stormcloaks and lock yourself out of the Legion plotline, or vice versa, you still get to go to all the towns or see all the people. You just have radically different missions when you go there or interact with them.

While it would be, perhaps, less than ideal that, if you were forced to choose between three different factions, and regardless of which faction you chose, you would have to go to get whatever random mcguffin from a specific dungeon to bring back to your chosen faction, that's the sort of thing developers do to just make sure that they can focus on developing a few good dungeons, rather than copy-pasting generic ones.

I talk about this sort of thing specifically as a counter to the argument Gungho1 made about it taking "1 TB of hard disk" to play a game with multiple divergent plotlines that allow for player choice.

That doesn't mean there can't be locations that exist purely for the player to have one more cave to explore, but that there are ways to use the same character or location in radically different plotlines.

As for dynamic puzzles, I don't think it should necessarily be at install - why not be at a point like character creation, so that a new playthrough in a murder mystery will have a different killer be the perpetrator? You could even use dynamic play elements to cater the mystery to the player if you wait until just as the murder is taking place to stack the deck on the perpetrator to be someone more significant to the player - by either making the sort of character that the player gets into conflicts a lot with be the perpetrator, so as to make a more perfect villain, or conversely, to make someone the player has made friends with be the killer so as to introduce moral dilemma.

Building and controlling a unique, interesting and customizable character and interacting in the world in the way that only he or she can.

Yes.

To experience a new character.

6 or more.

I would not dare play a Beth game for any story other than my own; because Beth's writing staff is terrible.

^Note this is my answer to the poll, not your post.^

Regarding your post; I completely agree. But I would never expect Beth to do something like offer branching options in quests...they are too focused on 'environmental story telling'. Oh, there is this interesting note in this interesting place about this interesting guy...too bad I will never be able to be as interesting as this guy, because Bethesda hates consequence. Too bad I will never be as interesting as this guy because I can only answer 'yes' and 'no when I'm asked to do something.

I am honestly considering custom-tailoring a PC (a console I have never used for gaming purposes) to be the perfect mod machine; I will then advance my modding skills to the point that I am able to tailor the game to how I need it. Oblivion has mods like this, one where you arrived on a ship, chose your level of wealth and were never introduced to the MQ etc. There were also mods with meaningful choices in quests. I only know about these because of a good friend of mine who plays on PC and constantly mods.

Great thread. I don't feel that character customization and plot NEED to be mutally exclusive, it's the 'do it to get better at it' advancement system that really hoarks up the works. The root of the problem, imo, is making the player choose between effectiveness in combat, and effectiveness out of combat. I don't think anyone's ideal escapist character would be described as 'bad in a fight'. Yet if you're not wary about getting your combat skills and perks up in tandem with your out of combat skills (lockpicking and speech, I'm looking at you), you can quickly find yourself playing a noodle-armed wimp who will be cut down by the first rabid dog he comes across.

If you want to keep the 'practice makes perfect' advancement system, then the algorithm for determining what kind of opponents to throw at you needs to get smarter, so that combat challenges scale more directly to character combat power.

Actually, I sometimes rather like playing something like this.

The problem is not that lockpicking or speech are not capable of being skills a player uses to overcome challenges (note: overcoming challenges can obviously mean killing the obstacles in your way, but can also just mean bypassing them - you don't get EXP for killing enemies, after all, just getting around them, and getting the loot is all you need), but rather that Skyrim doesn't give you enough opportunities to play such a style.

Look at the "Thief" class - as of Skyrim there are NO offensive skills associated with the Thief. You can sneak, steal, get into places you shouldn't be, and fast talk. Well, OK, and you can use potions and wear armor, but that's beside the point. Using those skills alone should be a viable playstyle. Make the game more like the Thief Series, where the player can achieve all their objectives with (a much better implemented system of) stealth and lockpicking to evade enemies, or even pickpocketing the keys away from a guard, rather than killing him.

Better yet, Speech really needs more uses. Let me fast-talk my way through threats. Why can't I just con or confuse the giant into not pounding me into paste? Or better yet, into pounding that dragon into paste for me? Why can't I use high-level persuasion to talk my way into a shortcut that bypasses many of the defenses of a castle I need to break into?

To an extent, players of things like specific types of squishy mages actually DO enjoy the thrill of playing someone who isn't that great in a fight. It's thrilling because you're surviving on your wits alone. A silver-tongued prankster with a glass jaw who has to constantly keep wheedling and misdirecting his marks to keep them fighting each other, rather than figuring out who's pulling the strings, and just strangling you is exciting.

I don't yet own Skyrim, but since this discussion transcends all RPGs, I thought I would reply anyway.

Personally, I don't care about the character or the plot. I buy TES games specifically for the game world and game engine. The beauty of the series is that almost any problem (and definitely those of story and limited content) will be solved through modding.

I really don't understand PC owners that complain about the leveling system, story line, or graphics. Assuming the construction set is soon released and is as powerful as it has been in the past, then the game will begin to transform in ways that make gamesas's original "vision" or "plan for your character" pointless.

TES games, to me personally, are the RPG version of legos. It really doesn't matter what vehicle or building was on the front of the box, because once you get enough legos you can make anything.

I am not really a gamer and I buy few games, but when I discovered Morrowind I became a HUGE and DEDICATED fan of gamesas and their approach to open source games and modding. If that ever changes they will lose me as a customer. I'm slightly concerned because of the Steam requirement and the construction set release delay, but my concerns are probably (hopefully) unwarranted.

How about texture and model re-use where suitable. I would (greatly) prefer several locations with a story path through several of them (but not all). To have the events play out with some redundancy.
A powerful Cleric NPC could be encountered at the temple, or say... at the harbor in some neighboring town. The important event still occur, but the PC never went to the temple (and so never saw it; but the player could encounter the cleric in the Temple using a different PC long after they thought "they had seen it all" :shrug:

Indeed, that's been done a lot, and makes a lot of sense... Like sewers, and arenas, and government buildings. I'm talking about (off the top, as an example)... A book in someone's library that mentions an old mine in the hills, and using hints in the book and/or other places, the PC endeavors to find it. It could be nigh impossible to find otherwise (though it should not IMO spawn only to those that read the book).

Consider if the game did procedurally generate the layout and relationships of the major locations, NPC's, and random encounters at install, then retained the landscape with subsequent PC's, but shuffled (and re-dealt) the encounters and events each PC.

How much modding have you done though?

Post Merged with the above: Please delete.

I know, i'm playing (as usual) a Bosmer, and I already want to kill about 1/4 of the Nords in the game. There should be an option where you can take on the Imperials and the Stormcloaks, like there was in New Vegas. I gotta say the "No good guys" thing seems more plausable here than in Vegas, because the Civil War presents two factions with legitimate good and bad points that are fairly even, as opposed to how lopsided the NCR/Legion Grey/Black hats were in FNV.

Actually, Dwarf Fortress does something a little akin to this.

The game is built around a "Push button, build entire procedural world with 1000 years of game history behind it" as one of its core mechanics. You can build your fortress, die or abandon it, and build another in the same world, or, because it lets you keep your world's geographic RNG seed, history seed, etc. all separately, you can choose to restart the same world from scratch, or generate a whole new world.

Of course, THAT game has no plot or set-piece locations (well, other than what's on the different layers), so it's a bit easier.

That actually winds up making exploration not nearly as exciting, however, because it means that, since all the hills and caves and such use the same formulas to be constructed, exploration isn't quite as rewarding, since every cave looks like the last one.

I was thinking Dwarf Fortress, but I was not meaning random terrain... just shuffled locations and (some) details about hand crafted locations.

**edit: I should like to point out that (upon re-reading the topic) that terrain gen. and randomization (though I can see it...), is not what most think of when speaking about character vs. plot; So I'd like to cease the tangent if I may.

** @Topic: I greatly prefer plot over character; but do like a character tailored for the plot. For me Role playing is all about how would the character react to events; no events... No fun IMO.

Or you could go play dark souls.

I heard that game has almost no plot

Please do not take this personally, but given your comments, that I am quoting, in my eyes, any contributions you can offer to this conversation is severely diminished by them… you are not a BioWare games player you are a BioDrone, the last two BioWare games and their upcoming MMO has a story that has been quite possibly penned down by a 10 years old on his lunch break. There are countless observations about that fact, if you care to look past your BioHive (that BioWare social site is) but hey don't take my word for it...

BioWare story writing at it's best: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8868-Experienced-Points-What-s-Wrong-with-Mass-Effect-2
I implore you and anyone else reading this thread... do yourself a favour and read the article I linked to above before you speak about plot and video games ever again.

I have played every single game that BioWare has ever released and their plots are shallow, the setup the same in every single one of their games (it is a template design, just like terminator movies, hey they even have giant terminator in one of them), and the plot and morality is so protagonist centred you would think the moment the protagonist takes break the whole universe stops and explodes. In all fairness though their games however do have a very good art style (DAO excluded) and generally good production value with excellent voice acting (Jennifer Hale).

I won't say that Bethesda makes great plots (that honour, for now rests with CD Projekt Red), because they do not, what they do is provide a sand box environment that I can thrive in, rather than this "illusion of choice" that BioWare likes to offer (I suppose you never noticed that all NPCs in BioWare games stand still waiting for you to come talk to them and have no lives past their innate need to be engaged by the protagonist?), that always ends the same and the only results on the whole world at large you see is written in linear epilogue...

You want to play a game that treats you like an advlt, does not hold your hand and builds a story that does not evolve solely around your character... game where there is no black and white (and silly ways to measure it) just choices and consequences... play Witcher 1/2.

Kind Regards

P.S. OP, I find it amusing that you complain about choices offered in the Skyrim yet you yourself cannot include enough decent choices in your title poll... (it would help your cause and credibility if you actually did yourself what you expect others to do)

If you mean modding produced, then very limited. I did some retexturing that was contributed to mods back in Morrowind. I started a huge Morrowind mod that never got finished, because Oblivion came along and I didn't see the point in dealing with the lingering difficulties I was having with it. I was late to the Oblivion party because of the inadequacies of my machine, and produced nothing. I plan to be on the forefront with Skyrim and do my best to be a prolific producer.


Unless you mean mods used, in which case - a lot.

Going to list my answers here as that poll doesn't do a good job of covering my reasons in the options.

What do you look forward to more in RPG's? The plot of the game or building and playing your character?
Both leaning towards plot. A good plot will distract me from a bad character system (system has to be -really- bad to distract me from a good story).

After beating an RPG for the first time do you replay it?
Depends. If it's a really good RPG? Definitely.

Why do you replay an RPG that you've already beaten over and over again?
Rare is an RPG that I'll play over constantly. However, ones that are really, really good I do play from time to time. Games with modding capabilities see me playing them for a lot longer than ones that don't.

On average, how many different characters do you play one RPG as?
Depends on how many the game allows and how much I like the game. A mediocre RPG will only usually see one or two playthroughs. Good ones that allow for a lot of character choices I've played anywhere from 3 to 14ish. For the Elder Scrolls games I've lost count of how many characters I've created, deleted, recreated, etc.

Actually, I did read just read it (amusing read, by the way,) and I'll point to something else near the end of that article:



That's hardly the most scathing thing to say about a company. In fact, much of that article was talking about how Mass Effect 1 was a better game.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what your point is, exactly, other than that you obviously don't like BioWare. Or rather, while you make it clear what you don't like about other games, you don't make clear what you do like, and what Skyrim itself gets right or wrong.

Two can play that game... I can ask you for your point as well, you have none except for picking on my comment...

I expanded on the comments of the other guy who said BioWare games had great stories, no examples, nothing (though I do note he/she is entitled to their uninformed opinion), I discussed that in greater extend, with quotes and comments provided by others (who have time and get paid money to look into those things), with third party references and within context, because I think it was a bad form to compare Skyrim to BioWare game(s) without appropriate context.

I liked the linked article I happen to agree with it 100% (noting that while their stories do svck in many cases they are above average, but that is not hard these days, as we live in a society that thinks Transformers the movies have actually story of value in them) and noted I do not see things black and white. Perhaps researching a term "constructive criticism" is something worth investing some time in? Furthermore at this point I really have no desire of writing an essay about something that should by now be well understood and recognized by the so called "experts on RPG" that many forum goers call themselves.

This kind of argument happens a lot and each and every time people with little knowledge and even less experience are quick to bash whatever it is that they want to bash and play offensive. Your comments would have much more credibility if you actually countered my post with something of value rather than an attack that attempts to force me into defending myself and writing an essay about the very subjective topic, one that will not be read by those who already have an opinion that cannot be changed and in their minds know it all...

Truth be told I would rather spend the time I would waste doing so... on playing Skyrim.

P.S. Noting that I played every BioWare game and having an alias after a well recognized icon from one of their legendary titles is certainly a sure way of declaring ones hatred of their products right?

... Riiiiiight.

So, because you have yet to actually say anything about the actual topic of the thread, other than to attack the original poster, and to post a link to an article that talks about something entirely irrelevant to the topic of the thread, I ask you what you actually think are good traits in an RPG... and that is somehow attacking you?

.. and then you go on to spend the rest of your post trying to insult me directly for asking a question in a way that in no way implies any of the things you are trying to claim about me...

Paranoid much?

the main story is my character having a dumb dream. everything else i do is real to him...

I agree.

At the moment, I'm contemplating my pacifist healer joining the Companions to get the lycanthrope disease as that's a part of her character. Does it mean that in my fan fic world that's how she got the curse? By joining the Companions? No. I'm the master of my own background story and can pick and choose what really happened to my character as opposed to what i did in the game. Like joining the College of Winterhold. Sure, I became Arch Mage, but in my characters "canon" background, I just went there to hone my skills and someone else became Arch-Mage.

Personally I think that Skyrim has more traits of an MMO then a single player rpg. You walk up to someone and you either say: Yes, I'll do your chore for you or no, not interrested, good luck. In some rare cases though like in that quest where you have to choose between killing a group of redguard mercenaries for some woman or betray the woman and help the mercenaries.

90% of the time consists of yay or nay, which is disappointing

I find I repeat myself often but I suppose its worth mentioning one more time. Elder Scrolls: Skyrim is not an RPG in the classic sense, it definitly falls into a sub-genre of RPG's which I think can be accuratly called Interactive Novels. This isn't a game about making morale choices, playing your character from your own customized class, or attempting to play the game from a certain perspective. At least in the sense that the game does not react to these things in any meaningful way. In interactive novels their is a story, it is written and hard coded. The scripts will run as they are intended to run and their is only one outcome for any given quest and only one story result when you complete a quest. You can approach quests in different ways, you can use different characters and you can resolve the quest in many ways, but in as a whole how you do it is irrelevant to the story.

If you want to compare games to see a clear difference between a more classic RPG genre game and the new sub genre that is Skyrim, the best comparison I can think of is Dragon Age.

In Dragon Age what class you choose determines your starting story. Each quest opens up dialogue options and depending what you choose to do the game responds according to those choices. You can play as an Evil Blood mage or a goodie goodie white wizard, so even within the same class your choices and decesions will alter the games response, consequences to your characters story and results of the story. This is is more in the tradition of classic RPG gameplay, aka you play a role and the role you play guides your story.

In an interactive novel like Skyrim there are no moral choices, the dialogue options are linear and have no impact on the story at all. There are no limitations, aka even if your not a mage and have no magic skills you can join the mages guild for example. The story is there, its linear and the only thing that affects your personal story is which quests you choose to accept and complete. Each of the quests you choose to complete (and do) have only one outcome that is pre-determined and has no bearing at all to your dialogue responses or choices you make. In essence its a story you follow along in from start to finish. The role-playing aspects comes in the freedom to choose what you do, what order you do it in and at what pace you do it at. But you cannot change the story, or impact the game world in any other way that which is pre-determined by the resutls fo the quests. There is some branching, for example if you join the Stormcloaks side of the Civil war the story of that war will be from that perspective rather the Empires, but these types of branches are rare and again completetly pre-determined. Another words if you choose to join the Stormcloaks and fight the civil war on their behalf that enitre quest line is linear and their is only one way to complete it and the story results will always be the same regardless of how may times you run it with different characters.

I personally have no grudge with either method, though I prefer the more classic RPG approach of Dragon Age to the interactive novel approach of Skyrim. Both are fun, both have great stories and while technically their is a more linear story in Skyrim, its got enough depth, meaning and interesting twists (even if they are linear) to make it fun. And the replaybility comes from the fact that the sheer size of the gameworld means you can do completetly different quests lines than the first time you run through the game and have a very different experiance, even though technically each quest has only one way to complete it.