Really interesting read that made me reconsider the reasoning behind certain conventions of videogame role-playing games.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36637/GDC_Europe_Obsidians_Five_Hard_Lessons_Of_RPG_Design.php

What do you think?


Some highlights:

Randomized Checks lead to player reloading



A possible solution for poor Companion A.I.


With companion NPCs, in games like FO3 and FNV, sometimes they can be really effective at killing enemies (Boone), or set to be essential (FO3), in both of which cases it feels like playing in God Mode, and sometimes combat can get boring if your companion is killing everyone. At the other extreme, they behave stupidly and quickly die.

As a result, I enjoyed picking up companions for their dialogue and quests, but usually I would not bring them along adventuring.

Sawyer's idea about reducing their damage to 25% and the damage taken by an equal measure sounds like an interesting solution.

Obviously speaking only for myself here, but i reloaded due to speech checks more often in New Vegas (that shows the exact required amount) than in Fallout 3 (that shows percentual chance of success). In New Vegas knowing exactly how much to raise said skill i just reload and use whatever means avalaible to get that amount, in Fallout 3 i use boosting items if i have any, but mostly just accept the outcome.

I disagree with a lot of what he said besides point number 5 I agree with that point. The game needs to be good before Roleplaying occurs, I hate to say that but it's the truth.

Mechanical chaos is frustrating: I disagree with that, I think that having random things occur is good for the game. New Vegas was hurt by the fact that random encounters weren't there. I do like the fact that Speech checks were done by skill and not percentage but you still need random stuff to occur in the game. I don't want to see a linear fun fest like Mass Effect 2.

What you can perceive is the most important thing: I partially disagree, an RPG player should be able to see, oh this armor increases my sword skill by 5 points. I don't have a problem with not seeing what damage I will do. That means it's very simple to figure out the system and that's not a good thing for an RPG at least a hardcoe one.

Strategic failures are the biggest disappointing failures for players: Disagree 100% with this one. You know the definition of Trial and Error well you try stuff and see what works, don't like what happened well you can start your chraracter over. By the 3rd time you should have a build that you are familar with and won't have problems in the game with. Fallout New Vegas I had to restart 3 times due to Trial and Error and also an unfamilarity with Reputation.

The idea of player vs. character is a false dichotomy: I don't know about this one, a lot of people Roleplay but then again a lot of people just play the game. Something that I don't think Sawyer realizes is that every character Roleplays even if the player doesn't realize it.

Good gameplay is better than whatever your ideas or whatever the player's expectations are: I agree 100% you need good gameplay or else it's going to svck. I point to Morrowind the combat isn't the best and if the Combat isn't good then that means It will be a grind and I may be forced to break the system in order to win, not something that I want to do in a game.