[Carlos Vazquez]

So I've heard. I still play Dawn of War 1 (and I actually like the Dark Crusade changes). I haven't bought Dawn of War 2 yet, but was really [REALLY!] hyped about it when I saw the conceptual gameplay ~Too bad that concept never made it into the finished game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzVlpUf7e5w

I liked all of the Dawn of War expansions; even Soulstorm which I found was the most balanced version of the game despite a few bugs.

[Tessa Mullins]

Betrayal at Krondor had the learn by doing system as well, and came out in 1992

Even Wasteland had it in 1988.

[Yvonne Gruening]

The Magic Candle (1989) and Darklands (1992) both had learn by doing systems. No slam against Arena, but people often forget about TMC and Darklands.

Wow, someone else who remembers Darklands. That was my favorite PC CRPG until Fallout and Baldur's Gate came along. I had the (I think) 14 5.25 disk copy, which was a nightmare to run even back then but there was plenty of meat to make it worthwhile.

[Prue]

... Don't you think Fallout is enough of a TES clone as is? You want them to kill what little is left of Fallout's gameplay mechanics?

Fallout 3 is pretty much Oblivion with guns, yes, and I miss the gameplay of the originals if that's what you're inferring. What I'd like is to see XP for more than just killing, which I admit is a strawman. Ideally, I'd like points awarded for a whole host of activities but, more importantly, that experience could be turned into points that could be awarded to skills whenever the player chose. I don't like having to spend them all when my character levels.

If they're going to modernize the gameplay, I'd much rather the result ended up more like Silent Storm than Oblivion, but I doubt that's gonna happen!

[Luis Longoria]

You got XP for doing skills in the originals didn't you?

[Georgia Fullalove]

You got XP for doing skills in the originals didn't you?

In the original Fallouts? Yes, but not as much as killing things...however, doing quests is the main way to level-up your character...and the quests are weighted so that if you killed people in order to finish the quest or didn't/couldn't utilize relevant skills, you wouldn't get as much xp

edit: grammarz

[Amie Mccubbing]

Game and Story are at odds; The best games have no story at all, and the best stories are books, not games... An RPG is the odd man in that its a game that relies on a story; But the more you push the story aspect the less of a game it is (and vice-versa). The "Nameless hero" is a good game mechanic, it works well in the long-term (though he doesn't actually need to be nameless).

In Oblivion , you can be anyone in that cell [from innocent man to hardened murderer] ~and different every time you play; It might have been refreshing to instead have been the emperor's stable boy, or a special agent of the crown... but ~Every time you play!?

You are incorrect. Game and Story are not at odds. Gameplay and story can be at odds.

Personally I prefer a game with a good story and if I want to play something solely for the gameplay I'm better of finding and indy title or flash game.

Though the "Nameless Hero" can improve the chance of replaying the game, I personally like games to try to make more connecting stories.
Though this can also be achieved by making NPC's you meet anew during a game to stick around a bit more.
But I usually don't play the game as a new character immediately after completing it.

[Keeley Stevens]

You got XP for doing skills in the originals didn't you?

Yes. You got exp for repairing, disarming, picking locks and a few other things.. just like in FO3. The only thing missing in FO3 is first aid kits and doctor bags which gave exp when you succeeded in healing yourself.

[NeverStopThe]

You are incorrect. Game and Story are not at odds. Gameplay and story can be at odds.

Would you be willing to post an example of this? As I said in my post, I believe that the extreme edges are Chess (all gameplay, no story), and Movies/novels (all story and no game); a linear example of the "in betweens" could be Hero Quest, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Lands of Lore, Die by the sword, Ice Wind Dale 2, Fallout, Planescape, RingII, Riven/Myst, Star Saga, any "choose your own adventure book" with dice and uncertain combat, or one without ~and only passages to read.

Personally I prefer a game with a good story and if I want to play something solely for the gameplay I'm better of finding and indy title or flash game.

Does this mean you don't play games for the game?

*If gameplay is insignificant ~or entirely moot... then there's always DVD's or books on tape. (but its not the same as an RPG, and I do understand the draw of a good game-story). However, I will always consider gameplay foremost, as the single most important reason to play a game (as opposed to watching a movie or reading a novel). To me, the game's story is always a close 2nd.

:lol: If you like Halo (but not so much the game itself...), there are novels written in the game world about Master Chief.
(Yes I read one of them; I just had to see what exactly a guy could write about dropping a missile launcher and grabbing a needler, and shooting Grunts ~That's just what he did too, and it wasn't that bad a book).

[Markie Mark]

Yes. You got exp for repairing, disarming, picking locks and a few other things.. just like in FO3. The only thing missing in FO3 is first aid kits and doctor bags which gave exp when you succeeded in healing yourself.

I think those things would make a game like Fallout 3/New Vegas too easy. Levelling up in Fallout 1 and 2 was harder, and you only get a new perk evey 3 levels. In Fallout 3 I don't even need to use stimpaks that often because sleeping and drinking water automatically gives you HP so unless you're in a contained area with neither, it's easy to stay healthy (if you're willing to get a little rad poisoning from drinking from irradiated water sources). Fallout 3 just didn't really need them, infact the only aid I use most of the time is RadAway.

[Adriana Lenzo]

Those things are already in FO3.. all but the medicine skill. But yeah, that's not really needed. Seems they replaced those with just extra stimpaks and food items.

[butterfly]

To me, the game's story is always a close 2nd.

Me too, and that's quite convenient since I haven't yet played any game that has a story I can say is really good (apart from adventure games of course)
Usually they don't even have a general interesting idea to hold it all together... it's mostly 'lonely hero (or lonely party of heroes) saves the world from great evil'.
Some get away with it by making a good setting/world and ignoring the story (such as FO1)
Some have an interesting story idea but they mess up the exposition (?) like PS:T which explains everything halfway through, and becomes a kind of 'treasure hunt' game after a while. (sacrilege?)

(I'd say that the witcher got that -almost- right too {the story shines in the finale}, but I'm afraid I'll come out as obsessive )

[Mrs shelly Sugarplum]

(I'd say that the witcher got that -almost- right too {the story shines in the finale}, but I'm afraid I'll come out as obsessive )

That's ok... RPG players are obsessive by nature.

[Peetay]

Me too, and that's quite convenient since I haven't yet played any game that has a story I can say is really good (apart from adventure games of course)
Usually they don't even have a general interesting idea to hold it all together... it's mostly 'lonely hero (or lonely party of heroes) saves the world from great evil'.
Some get away with it by making a good setting/world and ignoring the story (such as FO1)
Some have an interesting story idea but they mess up the exposition (?) like PS:T which explains everything halfway through, and becomes a kind of 'treasure hunt' game after a while. (sacrilege?)

(I'd say that the witcher got that -almost- right too {the story shines in the finale}, but I'm afraid I'll come out as obsessive )

Either you're overly critical or I just have poor tastes (probably the latter), but with that being said, I agree that a story doesn't necessarily have to be good...it just has to be believable and/or engrossing (and sometimes just a reason to get the player into the setting). I think sometimes we expect too much and look back to the past with rose-tinted glasses...not that these new-fangled games couldn't learn a thing or too from our beloved classics *waves cane around*

That's ok... RPG players are obsessive by nature.

It's one of our better qualities

[Charlie Sarson]

It's one of our better qualities

:foodndrink:

I think sometimes we expect too much and look back to the past with rose-tinted glasses...

As http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showuser=472178 has in his SIG... "How, exactly, can you be "nostalgiac" for a game you're still playing?"

*(or in some cases, played yesterday) :shrug:

not that these new-fangled games couldn't learn a thing or too from our beloved classics *waves cane around*

:foodndrink: Agreed (again)

[LittleMiss]

As http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showuser=472178 has in his SIG... "How, exactly, can you be "nostalgiac" for a game you're still playing?"

*(or in some cases, played yesterday) :shrug:

Fair enough (I shouldn't be one to talk...it was only a few months ago that I myself was romping through the streets and casinos of New Reno...and I got my damn car stolen again!)

[Gemma Flanagan]

I always liked the dialogue you can start up with T-bone(I think thats his name right?). the Darth Vader style intimidation always makes me smile.

[ezra]

I always liked the dialogue you can start up with T-bone(I think thats his name right?). the Darth Vader style intimidation always makes me smile.

I like when you have six with him and his head explodes

Sidebar: Have you guys been keeping up with the Obsidian/Sega drama? I bet Obs is happy to be in business with Bethesda (even though it is a little awkward...but not as awkward as someone calling your game "not RPG enough" and then your publisher kinda acting on it)...just look at what Beth did with WET...gotta respect those marketing $.

[Baylea Isaacs]

Haha I forgot about that one! It's been awhile since I did a play through as a girl.

[dav]

Either you're overly critical or I just have poor tastes (probably the latter), but with that being said, I agree that a story doesn't necessarily have to be good...it just has to be believable and/or engrossing (and sometimes just a reason to get the player into the setting). I think sometimes we expect too much and look back to the past with rose-tinted glasses...not that these new-fangled games couldn't learn a thing or too from our beloved classics *waves cane around*

Well... I expect that extremely few people will ever admit having poor tastes, and of course, I'm not among them .
I don't think there's anything wrong with having high standards though... we've got photorealistic graphics... why not have top-rate stories in story-based games as well?
If the devs can't do it themselves (and most can't) why not hire an experienced professional?
They hire professional programmers to do the programming, professional actors to do the acting etc. don't they?
The stories desperately need to grow up... The adolescent boy fantasies aren't enough if they want to keep up with a more mature audience.
(interesting observation: the word 'mature' in games in often used to describe situations of extreme violence, sixual content or 'strong' language... that -and like the several words that are censored by this forum- have stopped shocking me or making me giggle since I was in primary school. So I consider most 'mature' content in games particularly immature)

You might argue again, that a script written by a professional scriptwriter, isn't always guaranteed to better than a script written by a game dev.
I'll agree with that, but I expect that the chances of getting a really good story so much better when a pro is involved, that I personally think it's worth the risk.


PS. Since we have established that as an RPG player I have the great quality of being obsessive, http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=71&ref=0&id=66 (<--- that's it, click it) where the reviewer ignores many of the game's features and pretty much writes a small thesis about storytelling (including setting etc.) providing very good and clear views of its importance and where that particular game got it right.

[Your Mum]

Would you be willing to post an example of this? As I said in my post, I believe that the extreme edges are Chess (all gameplay, no story), and Movies/novels (all story and no game); a linear example of the "in betweens" could be Hero Quest, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Lands of Lore, Die by the sword, Ice Wind Dale 2, Fallout, Planescape, RingII, Riven/Myst, Star Saga, any "choose your own adventure book" with dice and uncertain combat, or one without ~and only passages to read.

Braid, springs for most in my mind as a marrying of gameplay and story (especially the final level). Half-Life 2 and the episodes that followed it have a lot of story in there which doesn't defeat gameplay aspects.
The thing I mean is that you talk of them as two opposing entities, whereas they do not have to be. The quality is not on par with books and movies (since they have more time for it), but it's no less important. More story does not have to equal less game(play).
Games are interactive entertainment and it's interactive aspect is clearly the main driving force, but story helps drive the game. Unless you are competing against other people a story is needed to drive a game.

Does this mean you don't play games for the game?

*If gameplay is insignificant ~or entirely moot... then there's always DVD's or books on tape. (but its not the same as an RPG, and I do understand the draw of a good game-story). However, I will always consider gameplay foremost, as the single most important reason to play a game (as opposed to watching a movie or reading a novel). To me, the game's story is always a close 2nd.

:lol: If you like Halo (but not so much the game itself...), there are novels written in the game world about Master Chief.
(Yes I read one of them; I just had to see what exactly a guy could write about dropping a missile launcher and grabbing a needler, and shooting Grunts ~That's just what he did too, and it wasn't that bad a book).

I mean that I find a proper, consistent setting/story to be as important as the gameplay itself.
Not that I don't find enjoyment in a game that has one but not the other, but a game is good to me when it has fun interesting gameplay combined with a story and setting that drive it forward.

And the Halo novels by Eric Nylund are quite good and show the promise and strength of the backstory.

[Jessie Butterfield]

It seems most western RPG game writers are more concerned with writing witty dialogues & banter rather than crafting an intelligent & mature storyline. That these companies supposedly make "story-driven" RPGs is a sad joke. Most stories in RPGs nowadays are mostly just a rehash of the classic "ancient evil rises. Go save the world".

Even RPGs that are acclaimed nowadays for doing something 'different' like Mask of the Betrayer are mostly just a regurgitation of major themes of PS:T with its emphasis on a storyline that is about saving oneself/finding out the truth about oneself rather than saving the world. Even the outlandish characters in the game are similar to PS:T.

Funnily enough, it's some jRPGs that provide the most original (but linear) storylines -- a good example is Lost Odyssey (and indeed that game did use professional script writers). Yet they are scorned by most western gamers for trivial matters such as childish looking characters & terribly translated dialogue.

[Ruben Bernal]

Braid, springs for most in my mind as a marrying of gameplay and story (especially the final level). Half-Life 2 and the episodes that followed it have a lot of story in there which doesn't defeat gameplay aspects.
The thing I mean is that you talk of them as two opposing entities, whereas they do not have to be. The quality is not on par with books and movies (since they have more time for it), but it's no less important. More story does not have to equal less game(play).
Games are interactive entertainment and it's interactive aspect is clearly the main driving force, but story helps drive the game. Unless you are competing against other people a story is needed to drive a game.

I still say that Game & Story are like Oil & Water (and only so much of both will fit in one glass); You can have a good 50/50 mix but that doesn't change that you have less game for more story, and also the reverse.

Consider two versions of the same (non-rpg) game. The first has six 7 minute cutscenes separated by platform jumping and mild combat, the second has six 3 minute abridged cutscenes separated the same platforming and mild combat.
After an hours' play you've spent only 18 minutes actually playing in the first one as opposed to 42 minutes playing the second. (with Chess you play the entire time, and with books you don't play at all).

Its a simplified example sure, and takes no account of the quality of the writing or of the gameplay; Only the raw time spent consuming the experience of the whole.

[Queen of Spades]

I still say that Game & Story are like Oil & Water (and only so much of both will fit in one glass); You can have a good 50/50 mix but that doesn't change that you have less game for more story, and also the reverse.

Consider two versions of the same (non-rpg) game. The first has six 7 minute cutscenes separated by platform jumping and mild combat, the second has six 3 minute abridged cutscenes separated the same platforming and mild combat.
After an hours' play you've spent only 18 minutes actually playing in the first one as opposed to 42 minutes playing the second. (with Chess you play the entire time, and with books you don't play at all).

Its a simplified example sure, and takes no account of the quality of the writing or of the gameplay; Only the raw time spent consuming the experience of the whole.

Story does not equal cutscenes. A good story inside a game has story to be found left an right without actually breaking gameplay, integrated in gameplay and/or taken little away from gameplay.
But what you are comparing is just length of gameplay vs length of exposition.

[Portions]

I still say that Game & Story are like Oil & Water (and only so much of both will fit in one glass); You can have a good 50/50 mix but that doesn't change that you have less game for more story, and also the reverse.

Consider two versions of the same (non-rpg) game. The first has six 7 minute cutscenes separated by platform jumping and mild combat, the second has six 3 minute abridged cutscenes separated the same platforming and mild combat.
After an hours' play you've spent only 18 minutes actually playing in the first one as opposed to 42 minutes playing the second. (with Chess you play the entire time, and with books you don't play at all).

Its a simplified example sure, and takes no account of the quality of the writing or of the gameplay; Only the raw time spent consuming the experience of the whole.

Well... in an RPG game the story often develops through dialog where you do actually play.
But you're right to some extend, it's about balance...
A game doesn't need to have the complicated multi-layered story of Brothers Karamazov (for example).
But what little story it needs to have, should be as good as possible.
It's about quality, not quantity.