inherit
401
0
1
41,530
DragonKingReborn
20,504
August 2016
dragonkingreborn
http://bsn.boards.net/threads/recent/143
https://i.imgur.com/1myVt9D.jpg
DragonKingReborn
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
887
590
|
Post by DragonKingReborn on Oct 14, 2019 22:15:54 GMT
We know that games like what DA4 will presumably be cost a lot of money to make and as such developers are limited in what they can provide. Some of those limitations are fairly light, almost imperceptible while others are heavy and very noticeable. With our "world states" carrying over from one DA game to the next, first with the automated but imperfect "import function" from Origins to 2 and now with the Keep for the foreseeable future, "reactivity" and honouring player choices becomes something that many people want. Balanced against that, many other players just "want a good RPG", where they aren't limited in how they interact with the world and its inhabitants. Assuming that we can't have both (due to cost), which of these two - perfectly valid and understandable - desires for a game would you choose if it were left to you? For the sake of conversation, assume that whatever option you don't take remains at the level currently provided by DAI, whether or not you're happy with that level. Myself, I'd choose reactivity - the people I choose to help or not, to kill or not would ideally open and close different options at every turn. I'm happy enough with the level of roleplaying provided by DAI, but wanted the world to shape around me as I went, whereas it seemed quite static except in a few instances. And while liberated areas having people camping out - on the Emprise frozen river, for example - were fine and often amusing - I don't consider that to be "highly reactive".
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Oct 14, 2019 22:27:39 GMT
Part of what I loved about bioware games is that you can carry a playthorugh over t some extent. Having that matter more would be a big plus for me.
|
|
inherit
1265
0
Apr 14, 2024 11:47:48 GMT
1,669
isaidlunch
794
Aug 26, 2016 22:27:12 GMT
August 2016
isaidlunch
|
Post by isaidlunch on Oct 14, 2019 22:33:54 GMT
Reactivity. A lot of the "roleplaying freedom" in RPGs isn't even reflected in the game itself, so I don't see the appeal. Everyone treats your character like a generic entity.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
31,223
colfoley
16,559
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Oct 14, 2019 22:38:00 GMT
I imagine you are going to get a lot of 'in the middle.' And I think that some reactivity is nice...however I would lean havilly towards letting us roleplay. Hell my only real quibble with that is I often find I don't like purely blank slate characters either. I do want characters with a history and some grounding before we get our hands on them to and have actually exisisted in the world which can serve as a 'foundation' for your RP options. Though the best blank slate character was probably the Inquisitor...nevertheless... There are two big problems with games (and RPGs in particular) that focus on the 'reactivity of the world' (IE your choices mattering): 1. In these games I often find such systems to be a trap. They are false choices that the player can easily see past if they just scratch the surface well enough,either binary or just...false and silly. This might be something that more modern technology is actually allowing us to develop better choices, like Detroit Become Human is the master in 'reactivity' from what I have seen. However even then games like Detroit, Man of Medan, Heavy Rain, Until Dawn...etc...etc...are often short experiences which offer limited gameplay across the 'genre' which just don't make me interested in the game...and they are short. The more divergeant the pathing the shorter such games and really games have to be at least 50 hours (OK OK at least 20) for me to want to drop full price on them these days. 2. Such choices often lack a foundation. Again since Detroits not an RPG it gets away with it...but for RPGs it is important for me to actually build a character from the ground up and have as much character control as possible. CC, choosing name, gender, choosing dialogue options and expressing personality is vital to my enjoyment of the genre. More especially so because RPGs that offer *just* these sweeping moral choices *without* much RP in between (Horizon, Witcher 3, maybe Greedfall)...I end up not really caring as much about the choices. It ends up just being 'what would I do' and boring and not 'what would the character do I am trying to play' and fun and interesting. In the end just give me a good RPG, I don't care if a game has 1 ending or 50, as long as I get to shape the character I am playing and the relationship of the people around them.
|
|
Frost
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire
Posts: 635 Likes: 1,653
inherit
1542
0
1,653
Frost
635
Sept 11, 2016 16:54:37 GMT
September 2016
frost
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Frost on Oct 15, 2019 0:43:24 GMT
I voted for reactivity if, as the first post states, the roleplaying aspects would stay at the same level as DAI (having gender, race, and dialogue choices). A game can never have too much reactivity for me, so the more the better!
|
|
inherit
1033
0
31,223
colfoley
16,559
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Oct 15, 2019 0:54:32 GMT
I voted for reactivity if, as the first post states, the roleplaying aspects would stay at the same level as DAI (having gender, race, and dialogue choices). A game can never have too much reactivity for me, so the more the better! its a good point. I'd prefer a slight improvement of DAIs roleplaying...but it wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
inherit
4964
0
Jun 17, 2017 17:29:55 GMT
3,700
arvaarad
1,465
Mar 18, 2017 16:32:40 GMT
March 2017
arvaarad
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire
|
Post by arvaarad on Oct 15, 2019 1:03:50 GMT
In my opinion, there’s something extremely lonely about a totally freeform roleplaying experience. Even in a tabletop RPG, which theoretically allows for total freedom, I’d rather be shaping my characters in collaboration with the other players.
I’ve played 100% designed-by-me characters in TTRPGs before, and it honestly sucked. Even if all the lore was technically correct, I didn’t feel as if my character lived in the world. You just become this weird space alien visiting the party, and for me it kind of destroys the whole fantasy of existing in a world of magic and wonder.
|
|
michaeln7
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 445 Likes: 828
inherit
10102
0
Sept 26, 2022 23:28:28 GMT
828
michaeln7
445
April 2018
michaeln7
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by michaeln7 on Oct 15, 2019 1:15:01 GMT
I find my roleplaying desires in Dragon Age satisfied. To put it simplistically, I like having: 1) Heroic option 2) Witty option 3) Angry option
I think the nuance is there, but I find the consequences of my choices to be sorely lacking.
Therefore, keep the roleplaying where it's at? Golden. I can work with that. Have a greater amount of reactivity? Yes, please.
This is why I'm so stoked for The Outer Worlds. If it's the spiritual successor to Fallout:New Vegas, then it's got just about everything I want in an RPG. And it's not even my birthday...
|
|
inherit
1033
0
31,223
colfoley
16,559
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Oct 15, 2019 1:20:14 GMT
I find my roleplaying desires in Dragon Age satisfied. To put it simplistically, I like having: 1) Heroic option 2) Witty option 3) Angry option I think the nuance is there, but I find the consequences of my choices to be sorely lacking. Therefore, keep the roleplaying where it's at? Golden. I can work with that. Have a greater amount of reactivity? Yes, please. This is why I'm so stoked for The Outer Worlds. If it's the spiritual successor to Fallout:New Vegas, then it's got just about everything I want in an RPG. And it's not even my birthday... New Vegas leaves me frustrated from an RP perspective.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 23, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
30,246
Hanako Ikezawa
22,353
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Oct 15, 2019 3:33:45 GMT
If I had to choose only one of those options, roleplaying over reactivity easily. What's the point in the world reacting to what you do when none of the options are what you would do? Especially if the reactivity level would remain where it was in previous games like stated in the OP.
|
|
inherit
401
0
1
41,530
DragonKingReborn
20,504
August 2016
dragonkingreborn
http://bsn.boards.net/threads/recent/143
https://i.imgur.com/1myVt9D.jpg
DragonKingReborn
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
887
590
|
Post by DragonKingReborn on Oct 15, 2019 4:29:02 GMT
I imagine you are going to get a lot of 'in the middle.' Heh - I did go back and forth as to whether or not to include the option, but thought people should have the option to express that they were perfectly happy with how it has been done so far. In these games I often find such systems to be a trap. They are false choices that the player can easily see past if they just scratch the surface well enough,either binary or just...false and silly. Sure, but the same could be said for a lot of roleplaying options that exist in current games. The point of the question is do you want choices that result in 'high reactivity', not options that result in the 'appearance of high reactivity'... i.e. probably a pie in the sky wish, but one I'm curious to know opinions on.
|
|
inherit
529
0
7,815
Nightscrawl
3,266
August 2016
nightscrawl
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Nightscrawl on Oct 15, 2019 6:58:41 GMT
In my opinion, there’s something extremely lonely about a totally freeform roleplaying experience. Even in a tabletop RPG, which theoretically allows for total freedom, I’d rather be shaping my characters in collaboration with the other players. Ew, other players. I play SP RPGs for a reason. The little blurb for the Inquisitor was all I needed. I vastly prefer more of a blank slate than someone who has an established family. That aspect of both DAO and DA2 is my least-liked part of those games. With my Inquisitor, I was able to craft his family, their personalities, and his relationship to them. I care more about my Inquisitor's family than I do my Warden's or Hawke's and they only exist in my head. I’ve played 100% designed-by-me characters in TTRPGs before, and it honestly sucked. Even if all the lore was technically correct, I didn’t feel as if my character lived in the world. You just become this weird space alien visiting the party, and for me it kind of destroys the whole fantasy of existing in a world of magic and wonder. Can you expand on this some more?
|
|
inherit
1398
0
3,643
Absafraginlootly
"Abso-fraggin-lutely!" ~ Captain John Sheridan and Satai Delenn
1,374
September 2016
absafraginlootly
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Absafraginlootly on Oct 15, 2019 7:51:54 GMT
Well a big part of the reason I like dragon age is cause it hits that sweet spot in the middle, for me anyway.
Like elderscrolls games allow for me to create any backstory I want to roleplay - but then no one will ever respond to that ever and I'll never be able to talk about it in conversations. Other games react to who the main character is/was and what they do but the character isn't yours at all its a set protagonist. In dragon age you're limited in your backgrounds in exchange for having people actually react to them but can still roleplay who your character is through dialogue choices and by having different choices in how to resolve quests. And actually having the game react to those choices such as having different armies depending on who you recruited and having Iron Bull betray you if he stays in the qun is great too.
So yeah, happy with the mix of both we've had. I would, of course, like even more consequences of decisions and even more dialogue options for roleplay. But still preferrably in the middle, a balance between roleplaying and the world reacting to who you are and what you do, that means you have to sacrifice a bit on both fronts but that balance is more fun for me then swinging too far one way or the other.
|
|
inherit
1817
0
8,392
Kappa Neko
...lives for biotic explosions. And cheesecake!
3,372
Oct 18, 2016 21:17:18 GMT
October 2016
kappaneko
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Kappa Neko on Oct 15, 2019 9:30:05 GMT
If I had to choose only one of those options, roleplaying over reactivity easily. What's the point in the world reacting to what you do when none of the options are what you would do? Especially if the reactivity level would remain where it was in previous games like stated in the OP. Why does a game have to be about what you personally would do? I always thought roleplaying was about playing a ROLE that is NOT you.
For me anyway, the fun lies in playing wildly different characters and having them interact with the world in a specific way. Whether or not I have the freedom to design a character completely or work within a framework of set criteria doesn't really matter. What matters to me is a fun character and an emotionally rewading story that goes along with it.
The poll confuses me a bit however because reactivity is usually a result of roleplaying options, no? A game like New Vegas has both roleplaying freedom and reactivity. Unless we're talking about a game simply reacting to STORY elements. Then roleplaying is not required for reactivity.
My biggest draw is always a good story. And good stories need frameworks. The hero needs to have established relationships that will be altered in the course of the story. So my priority is: narrative>reactivity>roleplaying.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
31,223
colfoley
16,559
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Oct 15, 2019 9:47:23 GMT
If I had to choose only one of those options, roleplaying over reactivity easily. What's the point in the world reacting to what you do when none of the options are what you would do? Especially if the reactivity level would remain where it was in previous games like stated in the OP. Why does a game have to be about what you personally would do? I always thought roleplaying was about playing a ROLE that is NOT you.
For me anyway, the fun lies in playing wildly different characters and having them interact with the world in a specific way. Whether or not I have the freedom to design a character completely or work within a framework of set criteria doesn't really matter. What matters to me is a fun character and an emotionally rewading story that goes along with it.
The poll confuses me a bit however because reactivity is usually a result of roleplaying options, no? A game like New Vegas has both roleplaying freedom and reactivity. Unless we're talking about a game simply reacting to STORY elements. Then roleplaying is not required for reactivity.
My biggest draw is always a good story. And good stories need frameworks. The hero needs to have established relationships that will be altered in the course of the story. So my priority is: narrative>reactivity>roleplaying.
I do think there is a segregation of reactivity and RP. Detroit is a highly reactive game...no one calls it an RPG. Though yes it would be nice for RPGs to have good reactivity but my list is more roleplay>narrative>reactivity.
|
|
inherit
4964
0
Jun 17, 2017 17:29:55 GMT
3,700
arvaarad
1,465
Mar 18, 2017 16:32:40 GMT
March 2017
arvaarad
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire
|
Post by arvaarad on Oct 15, 2019 11:23:54 GMT
In my opinion, there’s something extremely lonely about a totally freeform roleplaying experience. Even in a tabletop RPG, which theoretically allows for total freedom, I’d rather be shaping my characters in collaboration with the other players. Ew, other players. I play SP RPGs for a reason. The little blurb for the Inquisitor was all I needed. I vastly prefer more of a blank slate than someone who has an established family. That aspect of both DAO and DA2 is my least-liked part of those games. With my Inquisitor, I was able to craft his family, their personalities, and his relationship to them. I care more about my Inquisitor's family than I do my Warden's or Hawke's and they only exist in my head. To be clear, I don’t like MP games much either. When I talk about collaboration in the context of CRPGs, I mean collaboration with the game writers. I’ve played 100% designed-by-me characters in TTRPGs before, and it honestly sucked. Even if all the lore was technically correct, I didn’t feel as if my character lived in the world. You just become this weird space alien visiting the party, and for me it kind of destroys the whole fantasy of existing in a world of magic and wonder. Can you expand on this some more? It’s a little hard to articulate in words. On paper, my older freeform characters should have fit into the world. I made sure they fit the lore (it’s not like I was making Bojangles McFee the Electric Guitar Bard). But they just didn’t. They became these random adventurers who had so much internal story that their shared stories with the party felt insignificant. Vs. if the DM imposes lots of restrictions, and the other players are involved in defining my characters, they feel more like they’re actually involved in the shared experience. Some of my favorite RP stories are in Fiasco/Dream Askew-style games, where each person’s character is very much open to editing by the whole table, and can be “yes-and”ed in all sorts of ways that the “owner” of that character doesn’t expect. The characters still felt like they were mine, but they felt much more alive.
|
|
inherit
749
0
Mar 10, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
3,653
Iddy
3,727
August 2016
iddy
|
Post by Iddy on Oct 15, 2019 12:11:34 GMT
This question makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
LogicGunn
N3
I'll relinquish one bullet. Where do you want it?
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: LogicGunn
PSN: LogicGunn
Posts: 868 Likes: 1,715
inherit
2060
0
1,715
LogicGunn
I'll relinquish one bullet. Where do you want it?
868
November 2016
logicgunn
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
LogicGunn
LogicGunn
|
Post by LogicGunn on Oct 15, 2019 13:05:48 GMT
I went for Wide range of gameplay choices that result in high reactivity from the game world and NPCs cause I lean a little more towards that option, but I actually think DA has a good balance of both. I wouldn't want them to go the blank slate character, I think that works well for Bethesda games, but for Bioware games a little more back story etc is a better thing because the world and lore is so rich, especially when it differs by character class and race. The imported world state thing that they do is fairly unique and fantastic, especially now we have the keep and can create a world state without playing through the game again.
|
|
Elhanan's Ghost
N1
Damaged, but without the tattoo
Games: Shattered Steel, Anthem
Posts: 37 Likes: 105
inherit
11125
0
105
Elhanan's Ghost
Damaged, but without the tattoo
37
March 2019
elhanansghost
Shattered Steel, Anthem
|
Post by Elhanan's Ghost on Oct 15, 2019 18:45:15 GMT
This question makes absolutely no sense.
Do you want to be able to role play a wide range of character types using the options provided by the game? Or have the game world and NPCs react to your actions and choices in a wide range of ways?
Seems pretty straightforward. And everyone else who has commented seems to have understood perfectly.
|
|
inherit
749
0
Mar 10, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
3,653
Iddy
3,727
August 2016
iddy
|
Post by Iddy on Oct 15, 2019 19:12:55 GMT
This question makes absolutely no sense.
Do you want to be able to role play a wide range of character types using the options provided by the game? Or have the game world and NPCs react to your actions and choices in a wide range of ways?
Seems pretty straightforward. And everyone else who has commented seems to have understood perfectly.
It's just stupid to talk like we actually have to choose. I don't know any games that couldn't do both to some extent. Those that didn't were never that kind of game anyhow.
|
|
inherit
401
0
1
41,530
DragonKingReborn
20,504
August 2016
dragonkingreborn
http://bsn.boards.net/threads/recent/143
https://i.imgur.com/1myVt9D.jpg
DragonKingReborn
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
887
590
|
Post by DragonKingReborn on Oct 15, 2019 19:24:44 GMT
I went for Wide range of gameplay choices that result in high reactivity from the game world and NPCs cause I lean a little more towards that option, but I actually think DA has a good balance of both. I wouldn't want them to go the blank slate character, I think that works well for Bethesda games, but for Bioware games a little more back story etc is a better thing because the world and lore is so rich, especially when it differs by character class and race. The imported world state thing that they do is fairly unique and fantastic, especially now we have the keep and can create a world state without playing through the game again. I agree that I wouldn't want a "blank slate" either, but often when I see hard core RPing people talking about these games, a fairly common complaint is that too much of the characters story is filled in, even if it is only filled in up to the start of the game, so went with a blank slate as part of the RP preferred option as a nod to that.
|
|
veganzombiebeerfish
N1
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
Posts: 21 Likes: 17
inherit
10949
0
Mar 20, 2019 14:19:23 GMT
17
veganzombiebeerfish
21
Feb 13, 2019 22:23:00 GMT
February 2019
dragonflambe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
|
Post by veganzombiebeerfish on Oct 15, 2019 19:54:38 GMT
This question makes absolutely no sense.
Do you want to be able to role play a wide range of character types using the options provided by the game? Or have the game world and NPCs react to your actions and choices in a wide range of ways?
Seems pretty straightforward. And everyone else who has commented seems to have understood perfectly.
It's not necessarily a true dichotomy. It's possible, however unlikely, that a game could have both. In a lot of ways, that would be the Holy Grail of games.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Oct 15, 2019 23:36:19 GMT
Well if you're going to make me choose, then I guess roleplaying. The most important things to me in a game are 1) if it has an interesting setting and/or story, and 2) if it will let me make a character who is homosexual, and who can express that in some form.
If it has those things, then it can be as linear and railroaded as it wants. I almost always only ever make the same choices in RPGs anyway. When I do replay them, it's typically because I enjoyed the story, not to see different outcomes.
|
|
helios969
N4
Kamisama
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: helios969
Prime Posts: No Clue
Prime Likes: Who Cares
Posts: 1,853 Likes: 2,478
inherit
867
0
Apr 13, 2024 10:39:49 GMT
2,478
helios969
Kamisama
1,853
August 2016
helios969
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
helios969
No Clue
Who Cares
|
Post by helios969 on Oct 16, 2019 6:54:52 GMT
So my priority is: narrative>reactivity>roleplaying. Pretty much sums up my position as well...although I might say I want reactivity to my roleplaying...but it all begins with good storytelling.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Oct 16, 2019 13:56:50 GMT
If I had to choose only one of those options, roleplaying over reactivity easily. What's the point in the world reacting to what you do when none of the options are what you would do? Especially if the reactivity level would remain where it was in previous games like stated in the OP. Why does a game have to be about what you personally would do? I always thought roleplaying was about playing a ROLE that is NOT you.
For me anyway, the fun lies in playing wildly different characters and having them interact with the world in a specific way. Whether or not I have the freedom to design a character completely or work within a framework of set criteria doesn't really matter. What matters to me is a fun character and an emotionally rewading story that goes along with it.
The poll confuses me a bit however because reactivity is usually a result of roleplaying options, no? A game like New Vegas has both roleplaying freedom and reactivity. Unless we're talking about a game simply reacting to STORY elements. Then roleplaying is not required for reactivity.
My biggest draw is always a good story. And good stories need frameworks. The hero needs to have established relationships that will be altered in the course of the story. So my priority is: narrative>reactivity>roleplaying. For me it's narrative->roleplaying>reactivity. I agree with any constraints the story necessarily imposes on my roleplaying, and I like a good story enough that I'm quite accepting in that regard. However, I want the highest degree of freedom possible within those constraints. In many games, I find myself limited not so much by the story but by some developers' vision of what the character in that story should be, rather than what they could reasonably be. The result is most often that I can't express what I want to express. The world doesn't necessarily need to react to my choices in any significant way other than accepting that I make them, but they must be there. Recently, Pathfinder:Kingmaker's design suited me very well. You have a defined story and a guided progression through the areas available, with some areas and encounters locked until later in the story, but the kinds of things I could do and say within those constraints would put any Bioware game to shame. And there was usually more reactivity than in a Bioware game as well.
|
|