First of all excuse my poor english. Please don't take my views as if im trying to teach you how to make games, even when i speack imperatively, but only as my strong convictions on the subject. Something that scares me much is when people say that crpgs shoud be more linear (this was not said by an Oblivion dev). Worst when people say that you can't have a good plot and story unless the game is linear and the more linear the better for the story. There are some misunderstandings on this. The situation is this: some game developers created great quality non-linear games like Daggerfall, Ultima 7 or Fallout in the past. Im taking out Morrowind because its still a very recent game. However since they didn't sold as well as publishers expected they are now trying to find a way to increase sails so that they can pay the huge investement they put and profits they expect from games. The solution found is going mainstream, follow what the mass buyers want and giving them that. This translates into several things: -> great immideate appeal by using good graphics and music I have no problem with this as long as it doesn't meen scraping the quality of everything else. -> have a more linear story No problem either but this has consequences because character classes importance becomes reduced to how you win fights. Multiple paths are essential to give a meening for different classes besides how you do in combat. -> more story and easier gameplay The player wants to have fun and read something inteligent not to be staled by inconsequential gameplay or spending an entire afternoon trying to guess how to enter a certain place. Thats understandable, the player wants to control its play time. -> simplify the rpg system of attributes No problem with this as long as it is done right. I guess players don't like to spend too much time doing math with attributes to know what they are good at. -> insert your mainstream thing here There is probably more stuff but i don't remenber it now. This is all good. But people connected to computer science know more than this. I am studying computer science and the first thing i learned last week in my first class of contextual analysis is that the client never knows what he wants. If you are going to do what the client wants you may be lucky and find a client that knows what he wants but in most cases this doesn't happen. You have to collect info from several sources maybe even film the clients working. Its very hard trying to convince a client when you know that what he wants is the oposite of what he needs. Thats a computer engineer job. Another situation that computer engineers should be very good at is at diagnosing the exact causes of how things don't work as expected. If they don't diagnose things right strange situations like this may happen: programmers, when correcting bugs, adding more bugs in the patch than those they actualy corrected. Publishers pay for advisers when they want to know why they aren't getting as much money as they expect. The advisors diagnose the problem and publishers go with the advise. It seems however we are in a situation (like the one i described above) where the diagnose is bound to cause more problems than those that will be solved. Lets see some misconceptions: -> linearity is the right way to have great story-driven games We can can have great games with great stories that are not linear at all. For example Daggerfall. The side-effect of linear crpgs is that there is no point playing different classes except for combat. Linearity in a crpg is essential to give a meening to different classes. A thief doesn't solve things with combat. A warrior solves things with combat. A wizard solves things with diplomacy and itelligence. They need different game paths. Fallout did this very well. The only problem with Fallout was the lack of a proper story climax. -> with a non-linear game you can't build a good story because you need to control the way the story progresses This is a big misconception. Again the right solution is to try to isolate more the problem and avoid unnecessary colateral damage. If they said that cause-of-consequence is essential to have a good story then i agree. But cause-and-consequence is not the same thing as linearity. The book that started it all - The Lord of the Rings - has a very unusual structure. The story is divided at certain ocasions in several groups of people. I don't remenber the story exactly but i think it goes this way: A - gandalf and frodo B - frodos team C - gandalf journey D - story converges with aragon meeting gandalf E - ents journey F - traveling to that village (don't remenber the game) G - story converges at Sauruman castle ... lots of stuff happen here, wont write it to resume this ... X - frodo trip to Sauron Y - aragon victory and trip to the doors of sauron domains Z - the end Heres out it goes: A -> (B | C) -> D -> (E | F) -> ... -> (X | Y) -> Z The story is divided several times and each time certain qualities are emphasised, like the warrior, the stealth character and the magicien. The converges at the end raising in tension to build a climax. It would be hard to deny that the Lord of the Rings isn't a great story with great depth. Daggerfall has a similar structure and Bethesda should never be ashamed of their heritage: http://www.uesp.net/dagge r/hints/walkthro.shtml -> Games that are open-ended may induce the player to get lost and be boring. Another big misconception. Sometimes geting lost os part of the game like Daggerfall players know. But i don't think this would appeal to the mainstream. To solve this problem game developers usually create mechanisms that break immersion. Like arrows in front of the palyer giving away locations. Have you ever get lost in Daggerfall ? And still Daggerfall was the game with the biggest landmass made to date for what i know. Daggerfalls landmass was realistic. Its true that it was allways the same repeated over and over again but cities were placed at realistic distances. The misconception here is to blame open-endeness and not to blame the person who designs the quests for not giving the player the clues he needs in a role-playing fashion to be capabe of orienting himself in the world. As an example reality is much more complex and people have good solutions to orient themselves in difficult situations. Get your inspiration in reality not in out of the pocket solutions that have little to do with role-playing. -> Games should be easy and have more story Having more story is OK but being easier why ? There is a good solution for this without turning an rpg into an interactive book. Layered quests. The deeper you go the harder it gets but you don't have to go there. If you are a skilled player you play at a different level than an unskilled played but the game won't ever block a unskilled player from enjoying the story. After all the guy is paying and deserves to have fun. Salutations

Quote:

Original post by elander -> great immideate appeal by using good graphics and music I have no problem with this as long as it doesn't meen scraping the quality of everything else.

As sad as it is, a game with good graphics, crappy story and crappy gameplay will sell better than a game with bad graphics, good story and good gameplay. I think that most people if they are after the money will focus on atracting buyers first.

Quote:

Original post by elander -> have a more linear story No problem either but this has consequences because character classes importance becomes reduced to how you win fights. Multiple paths are essential to give a meening for different classes besides how you do in combat.

Well, depends because if character classes are not that important in the end of the game because they are balanced and they will give you the same ending, same responses from people, as long as you keep it to a volume that isn't overwelming, that is, playing the game 1 or at most 2 times again will allow you to play with all classes. Besides, you are talking about classes in the 'more linear story' topic, meaning you are talking about classes that change the story?

I think that the issue with linearity and non-linearity is that there are so many linear games. If there were in equal number maybe it wouldn't be such an issue.

Quote:

Original post by elander -> more story and easier gameplay The player wants to have fun and read something inteligent not to be staled by inconsequential gameplay or spending an entire afternoon trying to guess how to enter a certain place. Thats understandable, the player wants to control its play time.

I have heard a lot of people complaining about hard gameplay, and actually I have heard few people talking about more story (actually I have heard more people cursing the complicated story because it actually makes them think or because they want more fighting but they want their fights to have a goal, so they just don't go out of town to beat some slimes).

Personally I enjoy hard games.I certainly don't like losing but when I find an actually challenge is what makes my blood rush fast, a feeling that I love with action games.

But I'm an exception, I am the only person around here that says they like hard games, most of my friends just want a easy game that make them feel they can beat something and that they get more powerful with experience.

Quote:

Original post by elander -> simplify the rpg system of attributes No problem with this as long as it is done right. I guess players don't like to spend too much time doing math with attributes to know what they are good at.

I second simplyfing atributtes. I have played many games where some atributes are never important, and I hate that.

Maybe if you had two groups, the really important atributtes and the not so important atributtes for most occasions, but useful in special places. Not like you have DMG, HP, RESISTANCE and that is actually calculated by other atributtes like streghts, weight, armor.. I just don't like when games try to make me think the damage I do is an atribute, instead of just telling me that damage depends on many other atributes.

Quote:

Original post by elander -> insert your mainstream thing here There is probably more stuff but i don't remenber it now. This is all good. But people connected to computer science know more than this. I am studying computer science and the first thing i learned last week in my first class of contextual analysis is that the client never knows what he wants. If you are going to do what the client wants you may be lucky and find a client that knows what he wants but in most cases this doesn't happen. You have to collect info from several sources maybe even film the clients working. Its very hard trying to convince a client when you know that what he wants is the oposite of what he needs. Thats a computer engineer job. Another situation that computer engineers should be very good at is at diagnosing the exact causes of how things don't work as expected. If they don't diagnose things right strange situations like this may happen: programmers, when correcting bugs, adding more bugs in the patch than those they actualy corrected. Publishers pay for advisers when they want to know why they aren't getting as much money as they expect. The advisors diagnose the problem and publishers go with the advise. It seems however we are in a situation (like the one i described above) where the diagnose is bound to cause more problems than those that will be solved.

I think you dragged a little from the topic here XD

But on the subject, refering to games, first impresions count a lot. If someone sees the beginning with great graphics and music they will think the game is good, and start with a positive tought. They enjoy that game more because this game makes them feel better, as if you are playing a good game, but the truth is that you won't know till you finish it.

They are gamers. They don't think they have to judge a game. They will just play it and based on past experienced they will react to it. Just like some people just don't like big corporations and some people don't like small bussiness they have their mind already set.

Original post by elander
Lets see some misconceptions:

-> linearity is the right way to have great story-driven games

We can can have great games with great stories that are not linear at all. For
example Daggerfall. The side-effect of linear crpgs is that there is no point
playing different classes except for combat.

Linearity in a crpg is essential to give a meening to different classes. A
thief doesn't solve things with combat. A warrior solves things with combat. A
wizard solves things with diplomacy and itelligence. They need different game
paths.

Fallout did this very well. The only problem with Fallout was the lack of a
proper story climax.

-> with a non-linear game you can't build a good story because you need to
control the way the story progresses

This is a big misconception. Again the right solution is to try to isolate
more the problem and avoid unnecessary colateral damage.

If they said that cause-of-consequence is essential to have a good story then
i agree. But cause-and-consequence is not the same thing as linearity.

The book that started it all - The Lord of the Rings - has a very unusual
structure. The story is divided at certain ocasions in several groups of
people. I don't remenber the story exactly but i think it goes this way:

A - gandalf and frodo
B - frodos team
C - gandalf journey
D - story converges with aragon meeting gandalf
E - ents journey
F - traveling to that village (don't remenber the game)
G - story converges at Sauruman castle

... lots of stuff happen here, wont write it to resume this ...

X - frodo trip to Sauron
Y - aragon victory and trip to the doors of sauron domains
Z - the end

Heres out it goes:

A -> (B | C) -> D -> (E | F) -> ... -> (X | Y) -> Z

The story is divided several times and each time certain qualities are
emphasised, like the warrior, the stealth character and the magicien. The
converges at the end raising in tension to build a climax. It would be hard to
deny that the Lord of the Rings isn't a great story with great depth.

Daggerfall has a similar structure and Bethesda should never be ashamed of
their heritage:

http://www.uesp.net/dagge

r/hints/walkthro.shtml[quote/]

Linear games with good story are easier to make than non-linear games with story. And it works. They are just two ways of doing things and linearity with good story has been doing it's job well, people are just getting tired of it.

Original post by elander
-> Games that are open-ended may induce the player to get lost and be boring.

Another big misconception. Sometimes geting lost os part of the game like
Daggerfall players know. But i don't think this would appeal to the
mainstream.

To solve this problem game developers usually create mechanisms that break
immersion. Like arrows in front of the palyer giving away locations. Have you
ever get lost in Daggerfall ? And still Daggerfall was the game with the
biggest landmass made to date for what i know. Daggerfalls landmass was
realistic. Its true that it was allways the same repeated over and over again
but cities were placed at realistic distances.

The misconception here is to blame open-endeness and not to blame the person
who designs the quests for not giving the player the clues he needs in a
role-playing fashion to be capabe of orienting himself in the world.

As an example reality is much more complex and people have good solutions to
orient themselves in difficult situations. Get your inspiration in reality not
in out of the pocket solutions that have little to do with role-playing.[quote/]

I dissagree. True open ended games will make most players bored after a while. Why? they have no goals set by the game, and with acomplishing goals you get rewards. The player knows it will be rewarded. Would you kill the slime over and over if it didn't game you experience? Do it because it is so fun! the reward is the fun! >.>

In fighting games I sometimes play alone and train, but just to learn how to beat something. Most of the times that something are my friends. I have my reward by beating them and feeling that I can do as well or even better than them.

The only way true open endness would not bore a gamer is if that gamer learns to set their own goals and feels a reward in acomplishing those goals.

The closest solution for this would be to make the player feel the game is open ended and that the different decision he takes count, even if it's not like that.

Quote:

Original post by elander -> Games should be easy and have more story Having more story is OK but being easier why ? There is a good solution for this without turning an rpg into an interactive book. Layered quests. The deeper you go the harder it gets but you don't have to go there. If you are a skilled player you play at a different level than an unskilled played but the game won't ever block a unskilled player from enjoying the story. After all the guy is paying and deserves to have fun. Salutations

Well you are repeating more or less the issue you talked up there, but with different words. Like I said I like hard games. Most players don't like games who force them to think too much, they are just lazy. Also if a game is too hard for them *I* see it as a challenge, however what I have noticed is that it makes most players feel weak and uncapable or that the game isn't worth their time since it's not giving them joy and it's repeating the same thing(that they can't beat) over and over, so they get bored.

The ones who feel weak certainly don't like that feeling, they get pissed at the game because it shouldn't make them feel like that and at themselves because they should be stronger. So they stop playing to avoid that feeling.

There was this game that was incredibly hard, freeware so it wasn't made by expert designers or people who counted on money. They makers intended the game to be like that. It was pretty simple but your timing and precision needed to be flawless in many places, actually it was obligatory in the latter levels. I kept the game in my computer for more than 3 years, playing some levels even more than 200 times before I could beat them. I liked the challenge. The game had 40 levels and I reached level 39, never got through it because I had to format my computer because it started to give problems. Virus or something I dunno. Needless to say, I don't know anyone who dares to do that and most of the people that saw me playing the same levels over and over told me I would go nuts :p

Quote:

Original post by Coz Well, depends because if character classes are not that important in the end of the game because they are balanced and they will give you the same ending, same responses from people, as long as you keep it to a volume that isn't overwelming, that is, playing the game 1 or at most 2 times again will allow you to play with all classes. Besides, you are talking about classes in the 'more linear story' topic, meaning you are talking about classes that change the story?

I meen character classes in a crpg. The most basic classes are wizard, thief, and warrior. These identify themselves with the lord of the rings characters gandalf, frodo and aragon.

In linear crpgs classes only barely count for more than combat. If you look at the parallelism in The Lord of the Rings each parallel path emphasises on the skills of each type of character. Frodo stealth when delivering the ring. Gandalf magic and diplomacy. Aragon honor and prowess in Battle. Its hard to imagine a linear crpg being able to do this in a complex and deep way.

As a side note linearity in my personnal definition meens parallel stories and alternate paths. There was some talk years ago that in non-linear games you could create your own story but i think that was more publicity talk than anything. From my player experience with Daggerfall, Ultimas, Fallout and others this was never the purpose of those games but to give an environment where people could feel playing a different class would make a difference in more complex ways than combat.

Quote:

Original post by elander Quote: Original post by Coz Well, depends because if character classes are not that important in the end of the game because they are balanced and they will give you the same ending, same responses from people, as long as you keep it to a volume that isn't overwelming, that is, playing the game 1 or at most 2 times again will allow you to play with all classes. Besides, you are talking about classes in the 'more linear story' topic, meaning you are talking about classes that change the story? I meen character classes in a crpg. The most basic classes are wizard, thief, and warrior. These identify themselves with the lord of the rings characters gandalf, frodo and aragon.

I meant those too :p
A mage character could have a different background and would take different paths, meet different people and reach different goals than a warrior.

For example, if you are a knight. thieves and other 'dark' characters classes might refuse to give you information that could be used to defend the law, and you never get to know what they know. But if you were a dark mage, they might be more willing to talk for potions who could aid them. If you are a beginner thief they might even teach you a few things, to help a fellow colleage that is just starting. On the other side, they could too try to take advantage of your lack of knowledge and experience, depending on what you are the know what to expect from you.

When I wrote about playing the game 1 or 2 times, I meant like you can make you a warrior, but next time you play you do it as a mage. You could have a party of 3 and 6 different classes so you would have to play the game twice to experience all the different classes.

Quote:

Original post by elander In linear crpgs classes only barely count for more than combat. If you look at the parallelism in The Lord of the Rings each parallel path emphasises on the skills of each type of character. Frodo stealth when delivering the ring. Gandalf magic and diplomacy. Aragon honor and prowess in Battle. Its hard to imagine a linear crpg being able to do this in a complex and deep way.

It doesn't seems hard, just that it wouldn't give much replayability. You could design the game so all characters behave like they are influenced by their classes but next time you play they will behave exactly like they did last time.

Quote:

Original post by elander As a side note linearity in my personnal definition meens parallel stories and alternate paths. There was some talk years ago that in non-linear games you could create your own story but i think that was more publicity talk than anything. From my player experience with Daggerfall, Ultimas, Fallout and others this was never the purpose of those games but to give an environment where people could feel playing a different class would make a difference in more complex ways than combat.

I find interesting this about making the class of choice of the characters appear as part as their personality.

As far as graphics go, Bethesda (makers of the elder scrolls series) have always tried their best at releasing games with cutting edge graphics. They just have the money to do it now.

People may like using their imagination when playing a game, I don't particularly. Realism, or at least pseudo-realism, of graphics, sound, physics, etc. all help make the world more convincing, and to me add to the quality of gameplay and storytelling.

The definition of easy is really subjective in any video game, and quite especially an RPG. With factors like levels, skills, combat, puzzles, money, etc. people could find plenty of reasons to say a game was too difficult. All in all the fun comes from story and gameplay. Everything else should work for those two goals.

P.S. was Oblivion mentioned only because of Oblivion's graphics?

The variety that classes provides in my experience is one of the most interesting parts of crpgs. In Fallout the player doesn't control his companions but they can complement the players skill. Its possible this way to have a class without any combat skills: a doctor or a diplomat. In Fallout however is hard to divide the team in a situation where you have to get a thief companion do a job alone without the player allways being around messing things up, and the AI doesn't work so well. The player can give orders to companions but sometimes they just don't follow because it just isn't their thing. They have their own personality. Plus the player must do some convincing with their companions in games like Planescape T. to get them to do something for him.

Difficulty is rather subjective, but i find games that are linear (in that the player HAS to do the solution the designer had in mind) to be the more difficult games simply because, i don't think like the designer. If i see a locked flimsy wooden door and have a rocket launcher, i cannot concieve of a reason why i would need a pack of chewing gum and some toothpicks to open it, instead of just blowing it open. Games that are skill oriented, like Doom, or Halflife, where my own personal skill and tactics follow suit i do find enjoyable, especially on hard settings.

My favorite Hardest Setting was that for Duke Nukem3D, the monsters would repawn after 80 seconds like in the original Doom games, but the really cool twist was that if you blew up the bodies they wouldn't respawn. :D

Never forget the golden rule either...

If buyers are buying these games then aren't these games the games that buyers want to buy?

I realize (as a software developer myself) that the customer doesn't always know what they want. But when 2.5 Million people PRE-order Halo 2... well, Halo offered something that people want.

It's great that you want something new, different, and groundbreaking but no one out there is developing games for JUST you, they have millions of other potential sales to consider. Aren't you glad that game companies, instead of making the game that they have decided to make with no outside input, are tailoring their games to what the masses are asking and paying for?

I'm playing devil's advocate is all...

--Ben