What are controversial gaming opinions you have?

[Ford Prefect]

Controversial gaming opinion: video games are good.

 

[Mutton]

Battlefront 2 was because they marketed heavily to children, which meant actual news sites got interested, which meant Disney pulled them up on it.

That's not consumers, that's the press. The two are distinct.

Click to shrink...

Did they? The main thing I saw from the press was afterwards when they were dissecting the successful attempts to get Mombook involved with "UNDERAGE GAMBLING" posters.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Certainly nothing will change the situation in GTA Online, which makes Battlefront 2 look like a charity by comparison.

 

[Reveen]

Frankly I consider gamers themselves just as much a problem for gaming's as the companies themselves. Not just because they suck at collective action against industry bullshit, but also because when groups of gamers do manage successful collective action it's fucking horrible and destructive to games as an art form.

When a female developer gets harassed of Twitter and ends up fired over bullshit that's your gamers of the world unite right there. And if developer labor organization turns into a big fight in the industry I have my doubts that those groups of consumers are going to be on the side of the little guy.

 

[Renewal]

Frankly I consider gamers themselves just as much a problem for gaming's as the companies themselves. Not just because they suck at collective action against industry bullshit, but also because when groups of gamers do manage successful collective action it's fucking horrible and destructive to games as an art form.

When a female developer gets harassed of Twitter and ends up fired over bullshit that's your gamers of the world unite right there. And if developer labor organization turns into a big fight in the industry I have my doubts that those groups of consumers are going to be on the side of the little guy.

Click to shrink...

On labor specifically, I remember the voice actor strike last year being rather poorly received by gamers, which makes hopes dim for further and probably more critical labor fights. Of course, that might just be the perception from the unfortunately loud and hateful voices I only occasionally bumped into rather than a large consensus, and VAs do have a weird place in being important but perhaps not vital to game development. I dunno, but my hopes aren't high.

 

[Mutton]

On labor specifically, I remember the voice actor strike last year being rather poorly received by gamers, which makes hopes dim for further and probably more critical labor fights. Of course, that might just be the perception from the unfortunately loud and hateful voices I only occasionally bumped into rather than a large consensus, and VAs do have a weird place in being important but perhaps not vital to game development. I dunno, but my hopes aren't high.

Click to shrink...

Fundamentally the core of a labor movement is either inconveniencing business (through direct action) or by garnering consumer sympathy (which leads to them taking their business elsewhere). The VA strike had godawful consumer outreach and very public drama which didn't endear them despite having a fairly worthy cause. They did get the stepped payments out of it at least iirc in the end though.

 

[Skippy]

I believe that anyone who spends money on video games instead of just pirating them like a sane human being cannot be called an adult.

Click to shrink...

this upsets my childlike sensibilities Yeah, please don't advocate people break the law in a really blatant manner, off-handedly insult basically all the users in the thread as sub-adult, and disrupt the thread to boot. It isn't helpful, it's hard for another reasonable hypothetical user to reply to productively, and it's not productive to the thread as a whole. Have an infraction for this under Rule 4 (I could go for a couple of others here so I sort of split the difference), as well as a threadban, when you return from your temporary ban. Please try not to do this again in future, just chill out a little.

Thanks for your time.

 

[KingseekerFreyr]

I'm fine with the game giving me a backstory, as long as they don't do anything that threatens what I can do in terms of personality for my characters.

Something in said backstory that imposes something on my character that would be really out of character for them like having a wife/husband or even, children then I'm going to hate that shit because it means that I'm going to have to come up with some really contrived bullshit or not roleplay as those characters which would piss me off.

Or hell, being a slog just to get through to play the game would piss me off.

 

[Pidl]

I'm fine with the game giving me a backstory, as long as they don't do anything that threatens what I can do in terms of personality for my characters.

Something in said backstory that imposes something on my character that would be really out of character for them like having a wife/husband or even, children then I'm going to hate that shit because it means that I'm going to have to come up with some really contrived bullshit or not roleplay as those characters which would piss me off.

Or hell, being a slog just to get through to play the game would piss me off.

Click to shrink...

I'd actually prefer a main character who wasn't yet another single teenager.

 

[Zeful]

I'm fine with the game giving me a backstory, as long as they don't do anything that threatens what I can do in terms of personality for my characters.

Click to shrink...

This is literally impossible. Game backstories are part of the fucking framing device games use to place characters into the world, something that even the most easygoing and tame Game Master of a Pen and Paper RPG should be doing so that the game can even get started. You are asking for games not to make sense on any level.

Further lets talk about your use of the word Roleplay, because you've done something I've seen a lot of in my time playing actual RPGs often by new players to the medium; you've completely misunderstood the meaning of the word in the context you are using it. Roleplay is more than just playing a role, it's about crafting a narrative. In tabletop games you are often free to craft whatever narrative you want, but it's not a given for all games, because it is just best practice to constrain the scope of the game and limit the kinds of characters that can exist to better justify why they are working together. Ideally the GM should discuss how they should constrain the scope of the game with the players, so everyone is on the same page and more or less equally hyped for the game, but video games can't do this. There is only so much content that can go into a game, and maybe you can see some expansion later, but do to the fixed nature of play, the scope has to be heavily constrained so that the devs can do things like make quests, or have dialog. You don't have to like how the dev constrains the game to justify your character existing in it, but you do have to accept it, and if you aren't willing to meet the dev half way, then you honestly shouldn't bother playing the game.

 

[Kaiya]

This is literally impossible. Game backstories are part of the fucking framing device games use to place characters into the world, something that even the most easygoing and tame Game Master of a Pen and Paper RPG should be doing so that the game can even get started. You are asking for games not to make sense on any level.

Further lets talk about your use of the word Roleplay, because you've done something I've seen a lot of in my time playing actual RPGs often by new players to the medium; you've completely misunderstood the meaning of the word in the context you are using it. Roleplay is more than just playing a role, it's about crafting a narrative. In tabletop games you are often free to craft whatever narrative you want, but it's not a given for all games, because it is just best practice to constrain the scope of the game and limit the kinds of characters that can exist to better justify why they are working together. Ideally the GM should discuss how they should constrain the scope of the game with the players, so everyone is on the same page and more or less equally hyped for the game, but video games can't do this. There is only so much content that can go into a game, and maybe you can see some expansion later, but do to the fixed nature of play, the scope has to be heavily constrained so that the devs can do things like make quests, or have dialog. You don't have to like how the dev constrains the game to justify your character existing in it, but you do have to accept it, and if you aren't willing to meet the dev half way, then you honestly shouldn't bother playing the game.

Click to shrink...

basically "Writing mental fanfiction about why you are doing what you are doing in the game" isn't really roleplaying because there was no role given to play, it's just making up reasons so the actions taken within the game have some level of sense behind them. It's what I did for Skyrim and I had fun with it, but it's not really roleplaying so much as compensating for the massive gaping holes the developers put in their game.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

basically "Writing mental fanfiction about why you are doing what you are doing in the game" isn't really roleplaying because there was no role given to play, it's just making up reasons so the actions taken within the game have some level of sense behind them. It's what I did for Skyrim and I had fun with it, but it's not really roleplaying so much as compensating for the massive gaping holes the developers put in their game.

Click to shrink...

Uh no, role playing is defined as "act out or perform the part of a person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy" thus playing out a character that one has imagined is absolutely a form of role playing.

That doesn't mean that existing story structures aren't a part of role playing too but your definition simply is far too narrow to be anything other than wrong.

 

[The Englanderish]

basically "Writing mental fanfiction about why you are doing what you are doing in the game" isn't really roleplaying because there was no role given to play, it's just making up reasons so the actions taken within the game have some level of sense behind them. It's what I did for Skyrim and I had fun with it, but it's not really roleplaying so much as compensating for the massive gaping holes the developers put in their game.

Click to shrink...

It... is roleplaying. Because you are creating a role and playing it. RP doesn't require a preset path or a GM, all it requires is a role that you play.

 

[Kaiya]

Uh no, role playing is defined as "act out or perform the part of a person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy" thus playing out a character that one has imagined is absolutely a form of role playing.

That doesn't mean that existing story structures aren't a part of role playing too but your definition simply is wrong due to being overly narrow.

Click to shrink...

I guess, yeah, that's my bad. I maintain, though, that it's still not much of a roleplaying game if the writers are too damn lazy to give you any roles to actually play. That you can roleplay with a blank slate doesn't really fix the problem that the game doesn't engage with you or give you anything to actually play out.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

I guess, yeah, that's my bad. I maintain, though, that it's still not much of a roleplaying game if the writers are too damn lazy to give you any roles to actually play. That you can roleplay with a blank slate doesn't really fix the problem that the game doesn't engage with you or give you anything to actually play out.

Click to shrink...

On this then we agree.

Role playing can be augmented or harmed by developer efforts and it's the mark of good game design to be the former.

In that way as much as I love their work I think Bethesda dreadfully fails from a Role Playing perspective.

 

[The Englanderish]

On this then we agree.

Role playing can be augmented or harmed by developer efforts and it's the mark of good game design to be the former.

In that way as much as I love their work I think Bethesda dreadfully fails from a Role Playing perspective.

Click to shrink...

I'm honestly pretty on-the fence about this. Fallout 4 gave me a set role and I resisted it at every turn because it had zero interest for me. That's the danger with set paths - it requires one to actually care about the path and not feel railroaded into a character that the player doesn't want to be. It's one of the reasons I typically avoid rpgs where the PC is voiced - they will never sound like anything approaching what I envision because there's simply too many permutations. I would've ragequit Skyrim so much if I had been locked into [standard Wood Elf] or [standard Argonian] or whatever.

 

[VolantRedX]

The issue is that unlike pen and paper RPGs games are not truly reactive. They have preset limits by the sheer nature of the medium. A GM can create a whole new plot based off the actions of the player, a video game simply can't. So either they set limits based off a preset story the players interact with or they minimize player impact on the events of the story.

 

[Vindictus]

The issue is that unlike pen and paper RPGs games are not truly reactive. They have preset limits by the sheer nature of the medium. A GM can create a whole new plot based off the actions of the player, a video game simply can't. So either they set limits based off a preset story the players interact with or they minimize player impact on the events of the story.

Click to shrink...

I mean, you could probably work out something using the tools Bethesda has.

Like, imagine using the radiant quest system, except instead of going to clear out a bandit camp or assassinate XYZ person for a major guild, it's a series of jobs for a tavern or shop or whatever. Like, 'Go negotiate the purchase of a shipment of mead from this brewery' or 'We're short of Bone Meal, can you go collect some?'

I can't see it being too hard to set up, honestly.

 

[Kaiya]

The issue is that unlike pen and paper RPGs games are not truly reactive. They have preset limits by the sheer nature of the medium. A GM can create a whole new plot based off the actions of the player, a video game simply can't. So either they set limits based off a preset story the players interact with or they minimize player impact on the events of the story.

Click to shrink...

Witcher 3 lets you actually roleplay someone in a wide open world, though. Lets you have the feel of choosing the actions Geralt could conceivably do, has the world actually like, react to you. New Vegas also does it better than Fallout 3 and Skyrim and even Fallout 4, letting your choices come up, having the world notice you, feeling like, yeah, the things you say and do are real, rather than empty words in a lifeless world.

 

[foamy]

I mean, you could probably work out something using the tools Bethesda has.

Like, imagine using the radiant quest system, except instead of going to clear out a bandit camp or assassinate XYZ person for a major guild, it's a series of jobs for a tavern or shop or whatever. Like, 'Go negotiate the purchase of a shipment of mead from this brewery' or 'We're short of Bone Meal, can you go collect some?'

I can't see it being too hard to set up, honestly.

Click to shrink...

It's not, but at least the bandit-clear fetch quests have some combat to them. What you're proposing is Bethesda to add more fetch quests, which is, uh, brave of you.

 

[VolantRedX]

I mean, you could probably work out something using the tools Bethesda has.

Like, imagine using the radiant quest system, except instead of going to clear out a bandit camp or assassinate XYZ person for a major guild, it's a series of jobs for a tavern or shop or whatever. Like, 'Go negotiate the purchase of a shipment of mead from this brewery' or 'We're short of Bone Meal, can you go collect some?'

I can't see it being too hard to set up, honestly.

Click to shrink...

Witcher 3 lets you actually roleplay someone in a wide open world, though. Lets you have the feel of choosing the actions Geralt could conceivably do, has the world actually like, react to you. New Vegas also does it better than Fallout 3 and Skyrim and even Fallout 4, letting your choices come up, having the world notice you, feeling like, yeah, the things you say and do are real, rather than empty words in a lifeless world.

Click to shrink...

Well yeah, but what if instead of negotiating a shipment of mead you decide to steal it and sell for yourself and then kill the tavern owner and claim that he left you in his will. Either the game has to have that be a preset path or it won't be able to exist and you're not given that level of free will. No matter how free you seem to be the game has to limit you in order to allow for them to be able to tell the game what to do. Games aren't coded in real time. No matter how reactive they simulate they're not actually reacting to you, they're sending you down a preset path than reacting to that. Basically a game can either give you a bunch of ways of completing a story, but you can't invent new ways of solving the situation that the game itself didn't think of. So either you're filling an established role with several options or you're a blank slate that is being piloted around different locations. No game can tailor its story to your actions because games aren't created in the moment.

 

[Vindictus]

It's not, but at least the bandit-clear fetch quests have some combat to them. What you're proposing is Bethesda to add more fetch quests, which is, uh, brave of you.

Click to shrink...

I mean there's nothing saying you need to do every procedurally generated quest that exists. In fact, doing every procedurally generated quest is probably impossible, because they're, well, procedurally generated.

All I'm saying is that if someone wants to roleplay, like, a tavern wench or an apprentice blacksmith, that should be entirely possible within the framework of the engine Bethesda uses? You'd need to do some modding to set things up, but it doesn't seem impossible or anything.

 

[Kaiya]

Well yeah, but what if instead of negotiating a shipment of mead you decide to steal it and sell for yourself and then kill the tavern owner and claim that he left you in his will. Either the game has to have that be a preset path or it won't be able to exist and you're not given that level of free will. No matter how free you seem to be the game has to limit you in order to allow for them to be able to tell the game what to do. Games aren't coded in real time. No matter how reactive they simulate they're not actually reacting to you, they're sending you down a preset path than reacting to that. Basically a game can either give you a bunch of ways of completing a story, but you can't invent new ways of solving the situation that the game itself didn't think of. So either you're filling an established role with several options or you're a blank slate that is being piloted around different locations. No game can tailor its story to your actions because games aren't created in the moment.

Click to shrink...

No, I know, and that's why I'm arguing against the blank slate method. Limit the choices you are allowed to take, and thus let you actually play a role. Give you a person who you can play, but whose overall decisions are limited by the kind of person they are. Let you choose who you become within limits, thus playing a role granted to you, rather than just whatever you feel like projecting on the screen.

 

[DestinyPlayer]

Grand Strategy Games are better for Roleplaying than Roleplaying Games because they can actually be reactive.

While we´re at it, Crusader Kings II is more fun when you shatter the entire bloody world into counties and start from zero that way.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

No, I know, and that's why I'm arguing against the blank slate method. Limit the choices you are allowed to take, and thus let you actually play a role. Give you a person who you can play, but whose overall decisions are limited by the kind of person they are. Let you choose who you become within limits, thus playing a role granted to you, rather than just whatever you feel like projecting on the screen.

Click to shrink...

While there's certainly fair criticism that can be made of how Bethesda designs their RPG's I think one shouldn't go too far.

I'm all for more in-game role playing opportunities but what you want seems to be just transforming Bethesda into CD Projekt Red, they make good games but not everyone needs to be like them.

 

[Kaiya]

While there's certainly fair criticism that can be made of how Bethesda designs their RPG's I think one shouldn't go too far.

I'm all for more in-game role playing opportunities but what you want seems to be just transforming Bethesda into CD Projekt Red, they make good games but not everyone needs to be like them.

Click to shrink...

Nah, I want Bethesda to be New Vegas in implementation is the main thing. New Vegas filled in the gaps that Bethesda either can't or won't fill, and it's maddening because they should be better than this. Witcher 3 and New Vegas are different examples of "letting you play a role" done well, not that ES6 needs to just do exactly what Witcher 3 did with Geralt. New Vegas is what I want from them.

Not that New Vegas was perfect, mind. But like, use that as the baseline, and improve from there. Not "New Vegas was ideal, hit that over and over, no change needed."